CHALLENGE: Provide a Single Piece of Evidence that God Exists

[Guitar's Cry]

Yup, well said... they just don't fit others expectations. And I'll go one further... belief in God is somehow exempt from the expectations we all have to believe anything else.

Actually, I disagree. From a certain perspective, belief in a creator God makes perfect sense.

A man admires the clay pot he just created. He looks around himself and can't help but see design in his reality. Who was the designer, he wonders?

 

[McBell]

I agree, evolution is not evidence of no god. I never said it was. It's just another explanation for my existence which was offered as evidence for god.

The point is that evolution is not another explanation about how you got here.

Wait..
It might be if you are arguing with some who thinks that god made humans just like they are now.....

 

[McBell]

Let evolution take it where?

It is a figure of speech that in no way implies a consciousness behind evolution.

 

[McBell]

Actually, I disagree. From a certain perspective, belief in a creator God makes perfect sense.

A man admires the clay pot he just created. He looks around himself and can't help but see design in his reality. Who was the designer, he wonders?

He looks around himself and can't help but see what looks like design in his reality.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Actually, I disagree. From a certain perspective, belief in a creator God makes perfect sense.

A man admires the clay pot he just created. He looks around himself and can't help but see design in his reality. Who was the designer, he wonders?

Few would claim that "design" does not exist all around us, but why do we leap to the conclusion that this design is the result of and "intelligent" creator versus "non-intelligent" natural processes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqJuITAVWc

 

[MSizer]

...I mean think about it a second.
You have been offered consciousness as evidence.
For the one offering it, it is good enough evidence for them.
...

Yeah but mestimia, just because a person thinks something is evidence, that does not cause it to actually be evidence.

Someone can say deduce "you own a car, and we think that the person who robbed the corner store drove a car, so the evidence shows that you are the robber" but the deduction is fallacious, and that's becuase what they think is evidence is not evidence at all.

Conciousness is no evidence for a god. It's certainly evidence that we don't know how to explain certain things, but that doesn't mean it's evidence for anything specific.

 

[McBell]

Few would claim that "design" does not exist all around us, but why do we leap to the conclusion that this design is the result of and "intelligent" creator versus "non-intelligent" natural processes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqJuITAVWc

Define "design"

 

[MSizer]

Actually, I disagree. From a certain perspective, belief in a creator God makes perfect sense.

A man admires the clay pot he just created. He looks around himself and can't help but see design in his reality. Who was the designer, he wonders?

Yes, but there is a fundamental flaw in that. The person is assuming that since two different things possess certain common traits, they must possess other common traits as well, such as origin from a designer. We know that pots come from potters, but we don't know where biology comes from. (We know a lot about the process, but we don't know where it all began. To assume a concious creator agent is a false analogy to a pot).

 

[McBell]

Yeah but mestimia, just because a person thinks something is evidence, that does not cause it to actually be evidence.

Someone can say deduce "you own a car, and we think that the person who robbed the corner store drove a car, so the evidence shows that you are the robber" but the deduction is fallacious, and that's becuase what they think is evidence is not evidence at all.

Conciousness is no evidence for a god. It's certainly evidence that we don't know how to explain certain things, but that doesn't mean it's evidence for anything specific.

But it is evidence for them.
Just ask them.

I agree that it is not convincing evidence, but it is in fact evidence.

One of the definitions of evidence is: grounds for belief.

so if consciousness is the grounds for someones belief that god exists, it is evidence.

 

[Valjean]

You are the greatest singular proof of a conscious- sapient "GOD" For when did something unconscious ever manifest consciousness- show me reasoning rock or leaf, or plastic cup that could talk-

Thee fore only a conscious thing could manifes something conscious know this

The existence of a remarkable organized or complex thing is no evidence of God, particularly when there exist evidence-based explanations for them.

It's more likely evidence of a lack of imagination.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

He looks around himself and can't help but see what looks like design in his reality.

Sure.

Does that make believing in a designer unreasonable?

 

[Willamena]

So I say again, I have never encountered a single piece of evidence that supports the claim that an Abrahamic God exists, and I invite anyone to help me “see the light” by providing any such evidence.

"Me."

Can't get more singluar than that.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Few would claim that "design" does not exist all around us, but why do we leap to the conclusion that this design is the result of and "intelligent" creator versus "non-intelligent" natural processes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqJuITAVWc

(Sorry, I'm on dial-up, so Youtube vids take forever to watch!)

Well, the reasoning is there. I'm not trying to make a claim of design, just suggesting how one--and how many do--find a designer reasonable.

 

[sonofskeptish]

...so if consciousness is the grounds for someones belief that god exists, it is evidence.

I suppose that mean that whenever we cannot (yet) fully explain something (like concsciousness), we must accept that it will be used as "evidence" for supporting someones belief in God?

Perhaps, but not fully understanding the workings of something (like conciousness) is not evidence of anything.

 

[sonofskeptish]

(Sorry, I'm on dial-up, so Youtube vids take forever to watch!)

Well, the reasoning is there. I'm not trying to make a claim of design, just suggesting how one--and how many do--find a designer reasonable.

I accept that for many people, there is a strong need or desire to believe that an "intelligent" designer is at play. However, I would suggest that this belief is not based on reason, it is based on a desire for this to be the case (that God is real). And when you remove this need or desire, your perspective changes.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I accept that for many people, there is a strong need or desire to believe that an "intelligent" designer is at play. However, I would suggest that this belief is not based on reason, it is based on a desire for this to be the case (that God is real). And when you remove this need or desire, your perspective changes.

Desire or need certainly play a part, but I think there is a reasonableness to someone believing in God because there appears to be an apparent design to reality.

Again, I'm not arguing for a designer, I'm just stating that this is reasonable from a perspective. A scientific perspective is obviously different: empirical, demonstrable evidence is required. But what of other perspectives? Is it not reasonable to accept that other perspectives may have different requirements for evidence?

 

[McBell]

I suppose that mean that whenever we cannot (yet) fully explain something (like concsciousness), we must accept that it will be used as "evidence" for supporting someones belief in God?

Perhaps, but not fully understanding the workings of something (like conciousness) is not evidence of anything.

What the hell are you talking about?

The fact that you have a consciousness, nay, that consciousness even exists is all it takes for some people to believe in god.

YOU brought up not understanding it.

I wonder why you would create such a strawman...?

 

[Autodidact]

You are the greatest singular proof of a conscious- sapient "GOD" For when did something unconscious ever manifest consciousness- show me reasoning rock or leaf, or plastic cup that could talk-

Thee fore only a conscious thing could manifes something conscious know this

You want me to show you something that is both conscious and unconscious? Do you see any problem with that? Anything at all?

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that consciousness is not evidence of god.
However, evolution is not evidence of no god.

I don't think the OP ever claimed it was.

 

[McBell]

I don't think the OP ever claimed it was.

I agree.
However, post #3 sure seems to