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.
There is no evidence at all for god. There inherently can't be credible evidence because god, not being corporeal or physical, is not examinable / assessable. No one can produce him for an interview or a viewing. There is no intersubjective reality of god. There are just people's claimed experiences and feelings and beliefs, which themselves are all over the place regarding god's character, attitude, attributes, willingness to intervene in human affairs, and on and on. There is no testable hypothesis. Claims or assertions about god and the doctrines surrounding all that not only lack any explanatory power to help make sense of one's existence or make good decisions -- they are often 180 degrees wrong. Religious faith fails as a basis for any sort of usable / actionable epistemology.
You are talking about religions, mordant. I asked a purely empirical question. We collect evidence all the time. What do you or anyone else USE to decide whether or not it is evidence of God other than your presumption that it is NOT??? Prior to my encounter, I made the same presumption. That is why it was such a shock to my worldview. I had to admit that it was entirely my presumption based on my rejection of all the idiotic claims and assertions of the many religions and theists.
When you and Phet can explain HOW you know what is evidence of God and what is not, your "belief based on evidence scale" will remain nothing more than your arrogant assertion, Harry.
I have done this so many times now, one must ask why I need to do this again. Once again, it is your collective inability to provide evidence for an intelligence behind it all, and your specific need to misrepresent, versus our evidence that shows we do not need an intelligence for what we do know.
So once again, where is your evidence behind it all? And do not complain about being silenced, you know where the science forum is, nor make up your usual excuses, you have your own Pantheism thread to post your evidence.
Because you have not proven that God does not exist.
Science does not answer, albeit maybe not yet, the who, what, where, when, and why.
Faith does offer a plausible answer to who, what, where, when, and why.
Therefore, the burden of proof falls on atheists and science to prove religious people wrong.
This has been done for over 2000 years now. It has always been naturalism. It is about time the religious started providing credible evidence for their claims, instead of arguments that are actually against the existence of gods, or are mere assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
The other thing I think about is why do atheists try to apply human logic to something humans do not understand? First of all, just because we understand logic that applies to things we know about does not mean that we know all logic.
Because rational thought is all we can use. Otherwise you are admitting you have no evidence for your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
And, second, our very existence is quite unorthodox, given that we have yet to find any other semblance of life, so why is it difficult to believe that our creation, and the answer to "Why?", is unorthodox?
But we have evidence that does not involve intelligence, so the burden is on you to prove there IS an intelligence behind it all, and then provide evidence for how that intelligence works, how it just knows things, and how you know what you know.
The only evidence I can give you to support the idea of God is the world around us, in that something so complex, where everything has to be perfect in order to work, just "works". It is too fantastic to have "just happened", not that I am insinuating that is what you believe. I suppose most atheists would likely not accept that as evidence, but that is more than anything atheists can offer to support there not being a god.
So your god is not complex and perfect? If you argue it is, then your own argument refutes your god claim.
The bold is continually claimed by atheists so perhaps YOU can tell me how you know SCIENTIFICALLY what is and what is not credible evidence of God? What is the scientific measure that provides this distinction?
You keep asking this as if we have not answered this before.
This has been done for over 2000 years now. It has always been naturalism. It is about time the religious started providing credible evidence for their claims, instead of arguments that are actually against the existence of gods, or are mere assertions.
Because rational thought is all we can use. Otherwise you are admitting you have no evidence for your claims.
But we have evidence that does not involve intelligence, so the burden is on you to prove there IS an intelligence behind it all, and then provide evidence for how that intelligence works, how it just knows things, and how you know what you know.
I call BS on the bold!! How do you KNOW it involves no intelligence? You have no basis to presume it just because you can't talk to it and ask these questions you ask of us (which is currently the ONLY method available to you to discern the presence of intelligence ) Discerning HOW it does what it does gives no information about the intelligence behind it that makes it function that way. The very fact that it is intelligible to our intelligence is probative.
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.
