Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Tiberius]

Where else can anything be verified, at the corner store?
I suggest you use the mind God gave you for thinking.

You can show it to other people and get them to check it.

Except you're stuck with something where that can't be done. Calling it verified in that case is not logical.

 

[Tiberius]

Science bible teachers said do not argue no man is God. As science is only science and owned no place to argue thesis against natural life.

Once owned a place in civilization Rome Church teaching. Who tried to give back a healing venue against satanic atmospheric irradiation.

As a healing building is historic true the only sound structure to raise human bio vibration.

Were first hypocrites of science and learnt their lesson

As stated further later shroud proof brain irradiation placed human chemical brain imbalances into its dark ages.

I still have no idea what you are saying. Take your time and try to write it out in something more than a stream of consciousness.

Once you write your post, go back and flesh it out before you click the send button.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd be happy to have a discussion or debate with you. Unfortunately, you insist on basing your position around so many logical fallacies I can't keep count. And then you take me pointing out those logical fallacies as a personal attack and rage quit.

People can accuse people of anything they want to accuse them of but that does not mean the accused is actually guilty. If you did name some logical fallacies you 'believe' I committed, I always explained how I had not committed them and why I had not committed them.

You believe that I committed logical fallacies and you never committed any, but I have pointed out numerous logical fallacies that you have committed and you could not say how they were not committed.

But this is not about logical fallacies, that is just a smokescreen. This is about reaching an impasse because you won't budge on your biased opinions and I will not budge on my beliefs because I know they are true. There is nowhere to go with that except in circles and I finally got tired of going in circles.

 

[rational experiences]

I still have no idea what you are saying. Take your time and try to write it out in something more than a stream of consciousness.

Once you write your post, go back and flesh it out before you click the send button.

Gods flesh in science as a science theist is planet earth.

God never owned human flesh. God the state to record causes us not to live the teaching of science about god.

A man is with gods protection first did zero maths science was life sacrificed for removing life protection from gas burning radiation.

Gas burning radiation is not metal mass radiation accumulation by particles mass.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a belief you are presenting as factual. Thus it's a claim. Stop trying to hide behind that, no one buys it.

That is a big fat straw man. I have said numerous time that no religious belief is factual.

If you think I care if you and your atheist sidekicks buy anything I say think again. I could not care less if I tried.
The only reason I am responding is to correct your misrepresentations of what I have stated here.

Happy trails.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can show it to other people and get them to check it.

Except you're stuck with something where that can't be done. Calling it verified in that case is not logical.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Tiberius]

People can accuse people of anything they want to accuse them of but that does not mean the accused is actually guilty. If you did name some logical fallacies you 'believe' I committed, I always explained how I had not committed them and why I had not committed them.

However, your logic was faulty. You've used double standards many times, for example, and you do post excuses. However, excuses don't mean that you didn't use the fallacy.

You believe that I committed logical fallacies and you never committed any, but I have pointed out numerous logical fallacies that you have committed and you could not say how they were not committed.

You posted many definitions of logical fallacies, and I specifically called you out on it, and you said that you were posting it "just in case." I pointed out that not only was it irrelevant to the thread, but it would create the impression that I had committed the fallacies when by your own admission I had not. It seems that my words were prophetic, since you seem to have convinced yourself that I had!

But this is not about logical fallacies, that is just a smokescreen. This is about reaching an impasse because you won't budge on your biased opinions and I will not budge on my beliefs because I know they are true. There is nowhere to go with that except in circles and I finally got tired of going in circles.

My opinion is that any position that is not based on testable and repeatable evidence, any position that can not be verified external and shown to be objectively true, is just opinion and can not be held up as being true in any way.

Do you disagree?

 

[Tiberius]

Gods flesh in science as a science theist is planet earth.

God never owned human flesh. God the state to record causes us not to live the teaching of science about god.

A man is with gods protection first did zero maths science was life sacrificed for removing life protection from gas burning radiation.

Gas burning radiation is not metal mass radiation accumulation by particles mass.

Dude. I can't understand what you say. Judging from the fact no one else seems to respond to your posts, I don't think anyone else understands you either. Unless you put more care and effort into making your posts understandable, it would seem that you are just wasting your own time.

 

[Tiberius]

That is a big fat straw man. I have said numerous time that no religious belief is factual.

If you think I care if you and your atheist sidekicks buy anything I say think again. I could not care less if I tried.
The only reason I am responding is to correct your misrepresentations of what I have stated here.

Happy trails.

If you do not think your belief is factual, why do you believe it is true?

 

[Tiberius]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was explaining to you how a particular viewpoint can be verified, and I was telling you that your particular viewpoint can not be verified in that manner. The conversation was not that hard to follow.

 

[Trailblazer]

However, your logic was faulty.
My opinion is that any position that is not based on testable and repeatable evidence, any position that can not be verified external and shown to be objectively true, is just opinion and can not be held up as being true in any way.

Do you disagree?

Yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you do not think your belief is factual, why do you believe it is true?

I believe it is true but it cannot be considered factual because it cannot be proven as a fact.

fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

Princeton's WordNet definition:

1. fact (noun)
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
"first you must collect all the facts of the case"

2. fact (noun)
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
"he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

3. fact (noun)
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed
"your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

4. fact (noun)
a concept whose truth can be proved
"scientific hypotheses are not facts"

What does fact mean?

 

[chinu]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Says God..

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.

Please show how a position that is not based on testable and repeatable evidence, any position that can not be verified external and shown to be objectively true is still, somehow, demonstrably true.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe it is true but it cannot be considered factual because it cannot be proven as a fact.

fact

something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

Princeton's WordNet definition:

1. fact (noun)
a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
"first you must collect all the facts of the case"

2. fact (noun)
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
"he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

3. fact (noun)
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed
"your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

4. fact (noun)
a concept whose truth can be proved
"scientific hypotheses are not facts"

What does fact mean?

So, you admit you can't know that it happened or that it exists, there is no proof, and there is no information to support it (those are what your own definition claimed, so don't complain to me if you don't like it).

So, why in all the world should anyone consider it to be true?

 

[Sheldon]

I do not claim that there is a God, I believe that there is a God.

An assertion to believe something is a claim it is true.

 

[Sheldon]

I suggest you use the mind God gave you for thinking.

That's a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please show how a position that is not based on testable and repeatable evidence, any position that can not be verified external and shown to be objectively true is still, somehow, demonstrably true.

It is not demonstrably true, but it is true..... Religious truth cannot be demonstrated, at least not to everybody.

Eyes to See, Ears to Hear and Hearts to Understand

 

[Trailblazer]

So, you admit you can't know that it happened or that it exists, there is no proof, and there is no information to support it (those are what your own definition claimed, so don't complain to me if you don't like it).

So, why in all the world should anyone consider it to be true?

I can and do know, with my seeing eyes and my heart and my mind.
But there is no proof that will EVER be sufficient for those who have no eyes to see or ears to hear and that is why it can never be considered factual knowledge.... it is spiritual knowledge.

Only if they have eyes to see and ears to hear will they recognize it as the truth. If you don't see it you don't see it.
There are no shoulds, you either recognize the truth or you don't.

 

[Sheldon]

Religious truth cannot be demonstrated, at least not to everybody.

No true Scotsman fallacy, you really need to look up what that means, unless you're content to make irrational assertions like that of course, which is your choice.