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

[Subduction Zone]

That is illogical. Evidence is NOT evidence because it is convincing. It is evidence because it is evidence for whatever someone is trying to prove.

Case in point: A prosecutor wants to prove the defendant is guilty so he presents all the evidence to the jury. Some of the jurors might be convinced that the man is guilty and some won't be convinced but the evidence is still evidence.

Let's go over this failure again.

The point of evidence is to convince people. Poor evidence will only convince people that cannot reason rationally. So there is good and bad evidence. All you have is bad evidence. "Johnny says so". You yourself admitted that it was not objective evidence. There is such a thing . Forensic evidence in a court is objective evidence. It is far more reliable than eyewitness evidence. That is the weakest evidence allowed in a court of law.

Second a DA does not get to enter into the record any evidence that he pleases. There are hearings before court and the defense can, and often does, get rid of quite a bit of evidence. If the defense is offering evidence that prosecution can do the same. To even show evidence in a court usually requires a judge's permission. Your analogy fails and actually shows that you are incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was no failure but even if there was that is not a fallacy.

Okay, the next time you use a fallacy I will point it out to you and we will not go on until you own up to it. Fair enough?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you accept Nostradamus as a prophet? Many of his prophecies have proved correct.
The 11 Most Shockingly Accurate Predictions From Nostradamus, The Greatest Analyst Ever

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you accept Nostradamus as a prophet? Many of his prophecies have proved correct.
The 11 Most Shockingly Accurate Predictions From Nostradamus, The Greatest Analyst Ever

Many of them more than once!

 

[F1fan]

How does what 'you and others' have pointed out prove anything?

You claim to use logic. Logic has very specific rules and standards. Your standards don't meet what is required in logic. I've explained this to you many times. You reject this because to accept it would mean you have no justification for your religious belief. Your defiance is necessary because you have trapped yourself and have no choice, unless you are ready to abandon your religious belief.

How many people

believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

You are correct here. But you are also guilty of it. You are one of these people.

All atheists do is hurl names of fallacies but they can never EXPLAIN how I committed any.

Actually I've seen others explain them many, many times. You underestimate your defiance and ability to ignore anything that exposes your poor thinking. You are exceptional at this.

Been there, done that.

Your evidence is very low standard and poor quality. It's insufficient to support an argument. That too has been explained over and over.

You can't even demonstrate that a person claiming to be a messenger of god is authentic.

Not if they were true Messengers of God. Only the false messengers were lying.

And can you offer us any facts to demonstrate ANY of them are authentic?

NOTE: I don't care what you believe. I'm asking for FACTS.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human an equal just a human said I know I am a spiritual being.

Would a theist as a scientist just a human theirselves ask prove it?

If the scientist wanted you to prove it then he would want you to give him evidence for what purpose?

Science the practice.

So humans quote science expressed beliefs about a place of spirit.

So a human says I observe. I believe how I express my human observation I am the highest thinker. I believe I dominate all things. Prove that ego status by naming then forcing change to any body I please.

So you would ask that human so your idea in science spirit is anything you can change by a human practice?
Yes he says.

So as every state does exist you would ask the theist why do you quote when no thing existed?

Makes no sense.

His answer is I want to name everything so I can obtain everything.

So his idea creator is all things.

Yet we live naturally.

So we would ask him how are you not going to change natural?

He says if I take what I want from the most highest.

We then ask him doesn't that mean your own human man position self stated?

No he says the first place.

Oh. Some human scientists like spiritual humans say we came from one and the same place that God had?

As your science claim is not to change God. By want and thesis. We however are human.

So you are seeking something not God and the highest?

Yes he says why I study NDE I am going to find where humans were released from. I don't want God I actually want spirit and the eternal. As I don't want to change.

Spirit can he says.

Oh so you believe what our human father told you the eternal place still exists and it is not God?

And you want to Obtain a statement statys only a human story as we don't actually own it!

Why your other brother who theories mass conversions in science says you are wrong as just thinking. And quotes spirituality in science is fake.

Instead he says spiritually as the theist no the infinite.

We don't own the infinite either.

When you think you envision the idea exactly where it exists in natural conditions.

No he says spirit travels.

Not the subject Infinite either.

So he then says.....where it all came from. And still argues about what is coming.

Therefore conscious aware just human spiritually aware as healers medical advice had to explain.

Human life is alive due to holy water. Holy water by evaporation and then flooding rain keeps coming back. Our spirit travels. Consciously we are aware as we lose water daily.

As radiation fallout tries to destroy life.

The subject what human science chose to cause theirselves. As the subject is just science. And science was just a human choice actually.

The subject in reality was never creation.

The spirit subject human spirituality also not science.

 

[F1fan]

Do you accept Nostradamus as a prophet? Many of his prophecies have proved correct.
The 11 Most Shockingly Accurate Predictions From Nostradamus, The Greatest Analyst Ever

Try sleeping tonight. And not wet the bed.

 

[firedragon]

The only evidence that matters to me is evidence that can be verified

Maybe if you give an example of what you mean its better. This statement is commonly heard, but is absolutely vague.

So please provide an example of what you mean by evidence in someone proposing "God".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if they were true Messengers of God. Only the false messengers were lying.

I found a logical fallacy already, thanks to F1fan. This is a black and white fallacy. Do you know why?

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's go over this failure again.

The point of evidence is to convince people. Poor evidence will only convince people that cannot reason rationally. So there is good and bad evidence. All you have is bad evidence. "Johnny says so".

I never said "Johnny said so" is evidence. In fact dozens of times I have said that the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.

Do you even read what I write? Why do you accuse me of saying things I NEVER SAID?

You yourself admitted that it was not objective evidence. There is such a thing . Forensic evidence in a court is objective evidence. It is far more reliable than eyewitness evidence. That is the weakest evidence allowed in a court of law.

I never said that there is objective evidence that proves the existence of God, NOT ONCE.

For obvious logical reasons there can NEVER be forensic evidence for God.

Case closed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was no failure but even if there was that is not a fallacy.

Denial is not a logical fallacy, but if you want answers it is rather rude. I made you an offer. I even started to follow through with it assuming that you would say yes.. That would have been the polite thing to do since I am going out of my way to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said "Johnny said so" is evidence. In fact dozens of times I have said that the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.

Do you even read what I write? Why do you accuse me of saying things I NEVER SAID?

I never said that there is objective evidence that proves the existence of God, NOT ONCE.
For obvious logical reasons there can NEVER be forensic evidence for God.

Case closed.

And I never said that you said that.

That was just an example of how poor your evidence is. You made the mistake of taking it literally.

And you mist the point of objective evidence. It is not to test God. It is to test your messenger. That is not the same thing. Now it appears that you are begging the question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My post was for my old friend, Trailblazer (though I did not specify it. My bad).

 

[Subduction Zone]

My post was for my old friend, Trailblazer (though I did not specify it. My bad).

We may have already discussed Nostradamus and how his prophecies are failed prophecies. They fail because they are excessively vague for one reason. That allows multiple fulfillments and raises the question were any of the people that fulfilled them actually the person in the prophesy. The same applies to many of the prophecies of her messenger.

 

[F1fan]

I never said "Johnny said so" is evidence. In fact dozens of times I have said that the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.

Do you even read what I write? Why do you accuse me of saying things I NEVER SAID?

But you are a believer. If messengers aren't evidence then why do you keep referring to them?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, the next time you use a fallacy I will point it out to you and we will not go on until you own up to it. Fair enough?

That is fair enough but I will not own up to something I did not do because that is unjust

Why do you need to do this? Why do you and other atheists on this thread need to put believers down? It really only serves to make you look bad to good people who read your posts.

You might want to read the posts of @QuestioningMind or @Nimos to me if you want to know how you can disagree with a believer and do so respectfully.

HINT: It is all about not getting personal and sticking to the actual subject matter being discussed.

"You did this, you did that" -- how utterly childish to behave this way.

Whenever you have to attack others, including but not limited to saying they have committed fallacies, that is disrespectful. It only shows that you do not have your own argument or anything to support an argument when ALL you do is attack other people.

I will stand up to atheists who behave this way although I might be the only believer who will.

A question you might want to ask yourselves is why it is so important to prove you are right and I am wrong, if you know I am wrong.

I never should have started this thread, I should have known better, but we all make mistakes.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you are a believer. If messengers aren't evidence then why do you keep referring to them?

The Messengers are evidence that God exists but the claim of the Messenger is NOT evidence because that would be circular reasoning.
Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is fair enough but I will not own up to something I did not do because that is unjust

Why do you need to do this? Why do you and other atheists on this thread need to put believers down? It really only serves to make you look bad to good people who read your posts.

You might want to read the posts of @QuestioningMind or @Nimos to me if you want to know how you can disagree with a believer and do so respectfully.

HINT: It is all about not getting personal and sticking to the actual subject matter being discussed.

"You did this, you did that" -- how utterly childish to behave this way.

Whenever you have to attack others, including but not limited to saying they have committed fallacies, that is disrespectful. It only shows that you do not have your own argument or anything to support an argument when ALL you do is attack other people.

I will stand up to atheists who behave this way although I might be the only believer who will.

A question you might want to ask yourselves is why it is so important to prove you are right and I am wrong, if you know I am wrong.

I never should have started this thread, I should have known better, but we all make mistakes.

It is the believers that call corrections a put down. It isn't. People are just trying to get you to reason rationally. And I myself have said that there is no problem believing in something. The problem arises when one claims that one's religious beliefs are rational. That puts a burden of proof on the believer.

So once again, corrections are not attacks.

 

[Trailblazer]

Denial is not a logical fallacy, but if you want answers it is rather rude. I made you an offer. I even started to follow through with it assuming that you would say yes.. That would have been the polite thing to do since I am going out of my way to help you.

Denial of what?
Answers to what?
How were you going out of your way to help me?

I cannot have a conversation when I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So please provide an example of what you mean by evidence in someone proposing "God".

"The Last Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split." Al-Qamar
Where is the rent? It is still one piece.