Evidence that God exists

[Tiberius]

@ Kyu.. again you insult me personally, and fail to address the points. I don't care how you choose to label it. 'Hounding' to me is the same as flame baiting. Your reasoning re the liar thing is totally off the wall. It makes no sense at all. Stop engaging me because you think you have to. Just engage me if you have a point to make. Otherwise, for the sake of our sanity, please don't.

I'm sorry fr0d0, I've read the entire debate with you and Kyu and kept an open mind to everything, but I'm just not seeing a case where Kyu fails to address your points. If you read back over the debate you will see you making a point, and then Kyu attempting to refute and then asking a question, which most times you promptly dodge by claiming Kyu "isn't addressing [your] points". If you can find some good examples of posts where Kyu does not engage your points or challenge you then please point them to me, because I seem to have missed them altogether.

[fr0d0]

I'm not decided as to how far science can go into religious issues.

As for my saying that I will not except belief in god because there is no discernible proof, it is hardly an impossible statement. You are attacking a strawman. My request for evidence of god is purely that - a request of evidence for god. And as for your cheese analogy, that is the nonsensical thing here. My line my reasoning would say that I can't accept cheese because there is no evidence of it, not because of some other random fact.

So, my lack of belief in god is due to a lack of evidence of god. Someone's lack of belief in cheese would be due to a lack of evidence of cheese. Someone's lack of belief in the sky would be due to a lack of evidence of the sky. Someone's lack of belief in santa claus would be due to a lack of evidence of santa claus.

Stop mixing things together. Stick to the point.

Yes this is what everyone keeps saying. What I'm trying to say with my impossible statement is that the evidence question is equally impossible. I asked my wife today if God was in or outside the universe, as the question has been raised on this forum before. She said He's in all the universe at once. Perhaps that's a better answer than mine.

Do you believe in god simply because you feel/think he is real? And if there is anything which has helped you make up your mind, please tell me.

I thought about it a lot, reasoned a lot of stuff out and still then had to take a leap of faith to actual belief. Studying helped me make up my mind. So did discussion with varied people, for and against.

Forget about all the rules, tell me exactly what makes you believe in the existence of god, and the Christian god at that.

What rules? You mean prosteletizing I presume?
Nothing super natural.
How it logically fits together from the Bible. How the Bible contains perfect statements of 'truth'. Truth = statements that are perfect in their irrefutibility.
Feelings are nice, although superficial to me. It's nice to feel grateful to an external force in that it's entirely positive. You have to be realistic, I strive to be realistic and to attribute correctly. God to me isn't a replacement for factual truth, but an additional type of understanding/ descriptor of our world that satisfies a human need.. not at all in conflict with science.. that would be abhorrent. But something more that, besides all the mumbo jumbo people have bolted on to it in the form of destructive superstition, is basic to human needs.

I like people like on this forum who seriously question religion and faith. To me it's a movement of extreme discovery stripping out the mountains of crap that have made faiths so absolutely dire representations of what they're supposed to be.

---

"We are both atheist, I just believe in one God less then you. When you realise why you have chosen to not believe in other religions, then you may understand why I don't believe in yours"

A quote from an unkown person (which I translated from swedish to english). I thought this suited this thread, you should think about this Fr0d0.

The original quote (in swedish)

"Jag vill hävda att vi båda är ateister, jag tror bara på en Gud mindre än dig.
När du inser varför du väljer att inte tro på andra religioner kommer du att inse
varför jag väljer att inte tro på din"

Yes I know the quote well Giff.

What I was attempting to establish with this thread was the point that there can never be demonstrable proof of God's existence, if you missed that. Apologies if you didn't.

As any non believer want's to understand the opposite.. that is: why I believe God exists ..pertinent perhaps is my point that science doesn't (yet) give us an appropriate platform to discuss God. Demonstrable proof, being necessarily absent, screws it before we start.

I absolutely understand that others don't believe what I do. After all, all Christians have to have not believed once. I was raised by atheists, became a Christian, became atheist again, and am now Christian again. I in no way demand you take on any of my beliefs, just that you grant me freedom to hold them, as I grant you complete freedom to think and believe what you like.

[athoughtfulman]

If I understand you correctly Frodo, because there is currently no demonstrable proof of God's existence which can make one 100% certain of either his existence or his non-existence, you believe that it is just as reasonable to believe in God as not to believe in him?

[fr0d0]

In terms of demonstrable evidence.. hell yes LOL

Seriously, that's a perfect point. It backs up the requirement that belief has to be a choice.

[twawki]

I think I know what your saying Twawki, though personally I feel the label of christian doesn't fit (technically it should but, it's peoples perceptions I'm talking about).

I mean, if you beleive that a god exists your not an atheist, your also not automatically a christian. You could be an agnostic theist for example. Or you could say you follow Jesus but, in reality your just trying to be a good person, which you can do as a member of any faith, or lack thereof.

So while I'm interested in hearing more from you I don't think the labels your using fit, and would have a few questions to ask but, not in this thread. It would be better off in it's own thread.

Yes but no. My perception of God could be that he is both a being and/or a force. Maybe a being so in some way I can identify with him, but also a force so in some way he is more a power than a person. I dont feel the need to put God or the lack of him in a box. But then I also see that he can still be both and that neither necessarily contradict the other. You see atheism is comfortable with living with evolution, energy etc but not with the personification of evolution , energy etc. Whilst many atheists do not want to be told how to run their lives they cannot escape the basic tenets of science and how energy operates. On the same token the religious are not comfortable with open freedom and personal responsibility. I think if we got beyond the cliches of God and no God we may be able to evolve more spiritually and then we would see things more holistically and less defined by preconception.

[athoughtfulman]

In terms of demonstrable evidence.. hell yes LOL

Seriously, that's a perfect point. It backs up the requirement that belief has to be a choice.

If that is what you believe, then any discussion regarding demonstrable proof being for or against god is rendered pointless.

However, I'm glad I finally understand where you're coming from.

Though, non-belief is not a belief. I'm never trying to assert that god is definitely not real, only unlikely, which can be done for any side of the argument fairly successfully once one makes some concessions regarding the need for appropriate evidence.

[Kyuuketsuki]

@ thoughtful: I have answered that question until I'm blue in the face. I don't know how I can say it any more clearly, I really don't. Are you unsure on my stance on that? Kyu want's evidence from me and I've said there can be no evidence. It can't exist, and that follows the logic.

And again this brings us right back to the question I asked in another thread, is it therefore valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied?

Now if we were to explore the reasonoing then maybe we could get somewhere. But as Kyu refuses to start to go down that road, then my hands are tied and I'm unable to make a start with logical reasoning. Kyu simply refuses to consider anything outside his own personal safety net, I believe, because he knows he wouldn't last a second in the debate.

It's not that I refuse to explore the reasoning, I simply do not accept your logic ... that's entirely different thing. There is no safety net, there is what is and what is not ... you have yet to justify why we should give credence to claims within the "is not" realm as valid.

@ Kyu.. again you insult me personally, and fail to address the points. I don't care how you choose to label it. 'Hounding' to me is the same as flame baiting. Your reasoning re the liar thing is totally off the wall. It makes no sense at all. Stop engaging me because you think you have to. Just engage me if you have a point to make. Otherwise, for the sake of our sanity, please don't.

I say it the way I see it and it is my opinion that you are, whilst you continue to behave the way you do, a waste of space ... given your behaviour in this forum I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't at least empathise with what I said even if they have reservations with the way I said it.

Based on things you have said and your behaviour you are a demonstrably disingenuous, your major characteristic is one of avoidance and, let's be brutally honest here, saying you are disingenuous is really only a more fancy way of saying you're a "liar".

Flame baiting is provoking someone until you get an angry response. Hounding is to pursue relentlessly and tenaciously. They are not the same. My intent is purely and simply to get you to engage with the discussion and actually answer the questions asked so no, I am not flame baiting, I am hounding. Indeed, if you look at your recent behaviour with the pictures and so on it wouldn't be too hard to make a case for you being the one who is flame-baiting.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I answered you here Kyu: http://atheistforums.org/thread-904-post...l#pid13240

[Kyuuketsuki]

I answered you here Kyu: http://atheistforums.org/thread-904-post...l#pid13240

And I am still awaiting an answer to that there.

You lack of comment on my response on flame baiting vs hounding leads me to assume you have retracted your assertion on that? You see that's what gets me about people like you ... you rarely, if ever, admit you are wrong even when presented with the facts making it as clear as day, you slimly slink away and pretend you never said it or similar (and before you say it yes, when I realise I am wrong I apologise, I make it personal policy to do so or to similarly admit to my error, I've even done so to you).

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I answered you here Kyu: http://atheistforums.org/thread-904-post...l#pid13240

And I am still awaiting an answer to that there.

WHAAAAT!?!?

Seriously Kyu.. I don't believe you said that. Really. Did you miss it? Did you miss my response? I replied to you on that thread at 1.09pm today. You posted this today at 5.02pm ...it's you that hasn't responded.

You lack of comment on my response on flame baiting vs hounding leads me to assume you have retracted your assertion on that? You see that's what gets me about people like you ... you rarely, if ever, admit you are wrong even when presented with the facts making it as clear as day, you slimly slink away and pretend you never said it or similar (and before you say it yes, when I realise I am wrong I apologise, I make it personal policy to do so or to similarly admit to my error, I've even done so to you).

Well that's a large leap of logic you're making. I was leaving it alone as I think there's nothing to be gained from pursuing it.