Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AGAIN the onus is on the person making the claim to say what evidence that have for it. How the evidence offered will be treated and validated depends entirely on what you present.
Who is making the claim?
Read the OP again. He wants "evidence of God" laid out in front of him in a platter, without anyone claiming anything to him.
The OP itself starts off with an oxymoron question.
Faith is NOT based on the evidence yet he starts with asking for evidence of one's faith.
It's like saying, tell me how many liters of milk does your bull produce in a day, and would you trade your bull with another bull that produces the same amount of milk?
The problem is, Bulls don't produce milk.
He can perhaps say what are the signs of God that intrigued YOUR Logic and YOUR intelligence (and I as the OP, will reject those signs anyway), and helped you to establish your faith in the existence of a God in a certain religion you follow - and will you believe in the God of another religion who has the same signs?
There is also a conflict in that. Two Gods of two different religions are not identical in any faith. It's one's own choice and research and that results in choosing the God of one religion of one's choice.
Read the OP again. He wants "evidence of God" laid out in front of him in a platter, without anyone claiming anything to him.
The OP itself starts off with an oxymoron question.
Faith is NOT based on the evidence yet he starts with asking for evidence of one's faith.
It's like saying, tell me how many liters of milk does your bull produce in a day, and would you trade your bull with another bull that produces the same amount of milk?
The problem is, Bulls don't produce milk.
He can perhaps say what are the signs of God that intrigued YOUR Logic and YOUR intelligence (and I as the OP, will reject those signs anyway), and helped you to establish your faith in the existence of a God in a certain religion you follow - and will you believe in the God of another religion who has the same signs?
There is also a conflict in that. Two Gods of two different religions are not identical in any faith. It's one's own choice and research and that results in choosing the God of one religion of one's choice.
The person who says that a god exists is making the claim. We call for evidence of that claim and you ask what evidence would convince? Evidence of a god being involved in the world rather than nature and humans and what they do. Evidence that one god was inspiring al those believers all over the world - but we get different religions.
What you are really asking is 'What would convince you when all the evidence seems to point away from it?" No wonder we can't tel you.
I seem to recall that I said to Cardinals that it was like asking "what would convince you that the world is flat?" There is such a mass of evidence that it isn't that the question is now almost pointless. To say "Well, if you can't tell what would convince you, then...what was the term he used?
Well actually he didn't. he just said that the question is an Oxymoron.
It isn't really "what viable evidence do you have that another religion does not?" It was asking what makes one religion more believable than another? Given - and this IS the atheists claim - that there is no convincing evidence for any of them.
Pretty much it was agreed that all religions are different paths to the same thing. One poster was giving evidence as 'science in the Quran', but Christians can do ther same thing - even without referring to the Flys' wing cure, which is contrary to science.
Tzaph said the claim had been 'established' (I'll check that back "We've established there is ONE reality.") but of course it hadn't - it had been made. Whether it it stacked up convincingly has not been established. The fact is that the truth matters - to some of us at least, and even it was true that religion made people better (1) I have seen little convincing evidence of that claim) I would still rather go with what could be shown to be factually -based since the evidence supported it, or reserve belief (and not believe) what on all the evidence, was not supported by it.
(1) "If a path results in our becoming more kind, more generous, more joyful, more compassionate, more peaceful, less critical less harsh less judgmental (of both our self and others) and more content, then yes that is real and valid." Tzaph.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-17-2017 at 05:47 PM..
Reason: check-backs and tidy -up
I seem to recall that I said to cardinals that it was like asking "what would convince you that the world is flat?" There is such a mass of evidence that it isn't that the question is now almost pointless. To say "Well, if you can't tell what would convince you, then...what was the term he used?
Well actually he didn't. he just say the question is an Oxymoron.
It's just flat out ignorant to even be questioning if the earth is flat or not in the 21st Century.
Same can be said for religion in the 21st Century. All of their gods have already been disproved with massive amounts of blatant evidence. It's beyond ridiculous to still be trying to claim the existence of the types of gods found in religion.
It's just flat out ignorant to even be questioning if the earth is flat or not in the 21st Century.
Same can be said for religion in the 21st Century. All of their gods have already been disproved with massive amounts of blatant evidence. It's beyond ridiculous to still be trying to claim the existence of the types of gods found in religion.
In an analogous sorta way yes - in fact the evidence presented for a round earth is now conclusive, and only denial of the facts and accusation of a monumental global fraud can permit of belief in a flat earth.
With the god -claim, it isn't so easy, because there is an earth and we know what it is. The is no god - not that can be demonstrated - there is only the faith -claim, and we don't know for sure what that is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-17-2017 at 06:02 PM..
There you go!
You are CLAIMING that there IS evidence that opposes the existence of God.
Lets see your evidence.
It is all around us. We find out how stuff works, and every time there are natural reasons. Lightning is a not a weapon thrown by a god, but natural electrical discharges. Storms and earthquakes are not done by angry gods but by natural movements of air and earth. Stars, and bioforms were not made by a god, but (on all the evidence) came about through natural processes.
Everything we know rules out a god being involved, and, where we don't know, we don't know. It is no evidence for a god - yet.
I can see an abiogenesis debate looming but the fact is that we have theoretical mechanisms, some indirect evidence and the suggestive fact that nothing after that needed a god to work, and nothing before that needed a god to work(1). . Against that we just have a 'goddunnit' magic act.
That is what we call no shred of (good) evidence for. And quite a bit of evidence against. Scientific errors in the Bible and Quran. And if they go down, only Hinduism and Buddhism is left, really. Hinduism - you can take it or leave it, and Buddhism engaged me for a while, but in the end ran up against logical problems.
That's what I got. What do you have?
P.s Asking Questions about our evidence is no evidence for your claim, by the way. At one time Theist apologists asked where the stuff of life came from, where the water came drom and where heavy elements came from. If we couldn't explain it, it must be a god put them there. In fact we now know the cosmos (thanks to exploding stars for Billions of years) provided the biochemicals and heavy elements and the cosmos is full of water. Answers we don't have - yet - are No evidence For a god - so save yourself that approach.
(1) yeah - have to foopnote this. This is (rather like archeology) absence of evidence where there ought to be evidence. That it isn't there is strong negative evidence. The claim that negative evidence proves nothing is flat wrong, where the parameters are known.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-17-2017 at 06:09 PM..
In an analogous sorta way yes - in fact the evidence presented for a round earth is now conclusive, and only denial of the facts and accusation of a monumental global fraud can permit of belief in a flat earth.
With the god -claim, it isn't so easy, because there is an earth and we know what it is. The is no god - not that can be demonstrated - there is only the faith -claim, and we don't know for sure what that i what that is.
It's very easy when you take into account the history of our Earth, the history of human evils, the destruction of our Earth today by humans, the destruction humans are launching on other sentient ecosystems, the horror stories that are filled throughout history up through today, the torture that humans launch upon innocent creatures and harmless children as well as upon grown humans who can't protect themselves. Millions of years without one shred of evidence for the gods described in religion.
Not to mention that this god has gone undetected throughout history up through today. It's only a figment of religious folks imagination, indoctrination etc.
It's very easy when you take into account the history of our Earth, the history of human evils, the destruction of our Earth today by humans, the destruction humans are launching on other sentient ecosystems, the horror stories that are filled throughout history up through today, the torture that humans launch upon innocent creatures and harmless children as well as upon grown humans who can't protect themselves. Millions of years without one shred of evidence for the gods described in religion.
Not to mention that this god has gone undetected throughout history up through today. It's only a figment of religious folks imagination, indoctrination etc.
Yes. I was leaving it open for someone else to pick up. We do not know what It (belief in gods and religious Faith) is, but it could be a common human delusion. And (if it isn't already becoming apparent) I think it will be seen to be just that, and common to all of us, and terribly persistent because it is an evolved survival instinct. Don't we see how Faith is a great inspiration for people? That it is closely linked with the self confidence of nations, communities, families and individuals? That posters here have a god in their head whose views, desires and approvals coincide exactly with those of the believer - even when the believer changes their mind? No wonder they take hard questioning of their faith so personally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but the fact is that we have theoretical mechanisms, some indirect evidence and the suggestive fact that nothing after that needed a god to work, and nothing before that needed a god to work(1). . Against that we just have a 'goddunnit' magic act.
Asking Questions about our evidence is no evidence for your claim, by the way. At one time Theist apologists asked where the stuff of life came from, where the water came drom and where heavy elements came from. If we couldn't explain it, it must be a god put them there. In fact we now know the cosmos (thanks to exploding stars for Billions of years) provided the biochemicals and heavy elements and the cosmos is full of water. Answers we don't have - yet - are No evidence For a god - so save yourself that approach. 