Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Subduction Zone]

Who made that rule?

Silly question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have evidence to back up our claims but if people don't look at the evidence they cannot see it.
If they just keep saying "that's not evidence" they will never know if it is evidence or not.

The upshot is that humans do not get to decide what kind of evidence God will provide to prove His existence because humans cannot tell an omnipotent God what to do. Thus we either accept the evidence that God has provided throughout the ages or we won't have any evidence at all. It is no skin off God's nose if some people are atheists because God does not need anyone, let alone everyone, believing in Him since God is fully self-sufficient and has no needs whatsoever.

The problem is that you lack reliable evidence. And every theist here appears to be afraid to run a proper test on their religion.

Have you ever thought that the reason people say something is not evidence is because it isn't evidence? For example the Bible is not the evidence. It is merely the claim. Your present argument is just hand waving. It is not evidence. It is not logical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nobody needs to try to disprove something for which no evidence or reasoning has been offered in the first place.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If we offered evidence would you accept it? Would you even look at it?

We do not have the burden to prove to you that God exists because we are not claiming that God exists. Nobody can ever prove that God exists, except to themselves. Believers believe God exists but some of us have absolute certitude so we also know God exists, but God's existence can never be proven as a fact. It is something that people have to discover and come to realize for themselves.

God wants everyone to do their own independent investigation so that what they discover will not just be something someone else told them was true. If someone else told us we would not know for ourselves. We would simply believe because someone told us. That kind of a belief is not on solid ground, it is precarious, because someone else could easily come along and tell us something else is true. Where would that end?

 

[RestlessSoul]

'There is a thing confusedly formed' sounds more like a claim than an observation to me. But either way I'm more concerned with the truth of the claim or observation than anything else.

Fair enough. If you wish to limit your experience of life and your perception of the world around (and within) you, to that which can be quantified and explained, that is your prerogative.

But I will leave you with the words of one of the great minds of the European Renaissance; “There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy”.

 

[F1fan]

Ad hominem. I will only dismiss ad hominem because its useless engaging with that kind of exchange. Answer the question critically if you can. Though I dont expect any decent response, I am just asking you nevertheless.



Thats not a relevant answer. I think you didnt understand any of it. No problem. I shall leave it.



It was not an answer.



I have not spoken of anything but facts in that post. But since this is just a rhetorical exchange now, I am of course withdrawing from this discussion expecting you to just dismiss with a small insult like you have done every time.

Have a good day.

You've done well to avoid the topic of evidence and the claims of god existing. You like to ask questions and criticize but careful not to put your beliefs up for scrutiny.

 

[firedragon]

Nobody needs to try to disprove something for which no evidence or reasoning has been offered in the first place.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Can you provide what you define your epistemology? What would you regard as justifiable reasons for a belief like the one in discussion? Only then anyone can approach an answer, and if you do, I will oblige.

And, do you say firmly that there is no God, or do you say it just cannot be proven?

 

[firedragon]

You've done well to avoid the topic of evidence and the claims of god existing. You like to ask questions and criticize but careful not to put your beliefs up for scrutiny.

The response I expected.

Thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

Silly question.

Why is it silly? Even if I show what I know that does not mean people will see it or believe it, so why show it?
Do you see the problem?

 

[F1fan]

We have evidence to back up our claims but if people don't look at the evidence they cannot see it.
If they just keep saying "that's not evidence" they will never know if it is evidence or not.

Evidence has to be available to rational minds. It has to be factual. You can't demand special assumptions, conditions, or mental states to classify something as evidence.

The upshot is that humans do not get to decide what kind of evidence God will provide to prove His existence because humans cannot tell an omnipotent God what to do. [/quote]
Yet no theist has ever shown that a God has ever provided any evidence of any sort. How do you distinguish a God providing evidence to one person versus them deceiving themselves about evidence they want to believe exists? Look at the 9-11 hijackers, those 19 men killed themselves because they were convinced God wanted them to perform terrorist acts. Are you suggesting God actually gave them authentic evidence to do this?

Thus we either accept the evidence that God has provided throughout the ages or we won't have any evidence at all. It is no skin off God's nose if some people are atheists because God does not need anyone, let alone everyone, believing in Him since God is fully self-sufficient and has no needs whatsoever.

Isn't it odd that only people who already believe a God exists are the ones who think they have special evidence? God would know it needs to convince the non-believers, but it doesn't;t bother. Almost as if God doesn't exist.

 

[firedragon]

You've done well to avoid the topic of evidence and the claims of god existing. You like to ask questions and criticize but careful not to put your beliefs up for scrutiny.

Let me ask you a question that maybe you could answer so that I can understand your epistemology.

Do you believe in a method of infinite regression of answers when it comes to the question I asked about the universe or since you mentioned energy always existed that the Big Bang model has a flaw in it or/and how the expanding universe at a critical manner enough to avoid a crunch or a collapse?

Only if you explain your position on this "AT LEAST" one could even engage with you. If you just resort to another ad hominem it is impossible.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans not the only living form.

Exist continuing by sex act is not God.

The conscious pursuit a human thinking.

Consciousness says first two origin humans died.

Science says no humans are still the first parents lied.

We know sex a baby to adult lives and died.

Science tried to convince us that as space infinite no number no age did not end then nor did life.

It is after all a science argument.

 

[firedragon]

Evidence has to be available to rational minds. It has to be factual. You can't demand special assumptions, conditions, or mental states to classify something as evidence.

But when asked for rational questions from you believing you have a rational mind, you have so far only resorted to ad hominem.

Let me ask you a question that maybe you could answer so that I can understand your epistemology.

Do you believe in a method of infinite regression of answers when it comes to the question I asked about the universe or since you mentioned energy always existed that the Big Bang model has a flaw in it or/and how the expanding universe at a critical manner enough to avoid a crunch or a collapse?

Only if you explain your position on this "AT LEAST" one could even engage with you. If you just resort to another ad hominem it is impossible.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that you lack reliable evidence. And every theist here appears to be afraid to run a proper test on their religion.

What is reliable to one person is unreliable to another person. Do you see the problem?
How do you think a religion can be tested?

Have you ever thought that the reason people say something is not evidence is because it isn't evidence?

I know why they say that, because the only evidence that God provides is not evidence to atheists since it does not indicate to them that God exists.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is not proof, because nobody can establish the existence of God as a fact; they can only prove that God exists to themselves based upon evidence they are willing to accept

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

For example the Bible is not the evidence. It is merely the claim. Your present argument is just hand waving. It is not evidence. It is not logical.

The Bible is not the claim, it is the evidence. The claims that God exists are in the Bible (e.g., what Jesus says about God). The Bible is not the best evidence for the existence of God because it is not verifiable evidence and it has many contradictions and other problems and as such it is not reliable evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

Heavens natural sit in space gases as spirit on deep face. With water mass.

Said by a bio living human.

No human form exists as conscious appraisal as each self dies.

No human actually. We are just surviving. Sex chosen. Survival until death chosen. By sex.

Mass sitting on face of deep explained as gases and water. First origins in space.

Other origin form is mass O bodies O self owned.

No age. No constant. No light. No gas.

Gases were burning stopped burning.

Says a thinker only living inside heavens surviving.

Life says a conscious thinker depends on gases burning is a thought only.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence has to be available to rational minds. It has to be factual. You can't demand special assumptions, conditions, or mental states to classify something as evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is evidence that indicates that my beliefs are true, and if they are true that means God exists.

Yet no theist has ever shown that a God has ever provided any evidence of any sort.

The evidence is the Messengers of God. Nobody can ever prove that God sent those Messengers and that is why it is a religious belief rather than a fact. However, there are facts about the Messengers that indicate that they were sent by God.

How do you distinguish a God providing evidence to one person versus them deceiving themselves about evidence they want to believe exists? Look at the 9-11 hijackers, those 19 men killed themselves because they were convinced God wanted them to perform terrorist acts. Are you suggesting God actually gave them authentic evidence to do this?

No, I am not saying the hijackers had authentic evidence. The authentic evidence would be the Qur’an but since they twisted the meaning it then ceased to be evidence at all.

As long as you get caught up in what happened to other people you will never be able to proceed on your own spiritual path. It is irrelevant what happened to people who have false beliefs, all that matters is that you do not fool end up with false beliefs. If you cannot trust yourself to recognize truth from falsehood then that is another matter.

Isn't it odd that only people who already believe a God exists are the ones who think they have special evidence?

It is not odd at all because the people who already believe a God exists believe that because they looked at the evidence God provided.

God would know it needs to convince the non-believers, but it doesn't;t bother. Almost as if God doesn't exist.

You are absolutely right, God knows what it would take to convince nonbelievers, but God has no need to convince nonbelievers since God does not need their belief, so God does not do what it would take to convince them. Another reason God does not do what it would take to convince them is because God wants them to come to believe by looking at the evidence He provided.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Silly question.

Do you have an answer to the silly question? A silly one will do.

 

[YoursTrue]

No evidence for either. Everyone with an opened mind knows that.

The Bible says we cannot see God. But I can see a tree. I can see other people. But it would be rather unusual for someone to ask another person, "Are you God"? But since we can't see God (that's what the Bible says and I believe it), have you ever figured to ask the One you cannot see in sincere prayer, if He's there? Have you asked HIM to let you know if He's there? Perhaps He'll answer you. That is, if you really want to know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is faith needed by some?

It depends how you vew or see faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it silly? Even if I show what I know that does not mean people will see it or believe it, so why show it?
Do you see the problem?

It is rather obvious. If people cannot defend their claims by "showing it" it is almost always because they do not really know it.

If a person is honest then supporting one's claims will convince them. The problem is that people are quite often not honest when it comes to beliefs that interfere with their religion. And quite often people do not understand what proper evidence is. But since this is a discussion forum there is no excuse to make claims and then refuse to support them.

The same applies in a court of law. The arguments of those that refuse to support their claims simply do not fly there and can have very negative consequences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have an answer to the silly question? A silly one will do.

I already did. But it is truly amazing that people even have to ask. If one has to ask "why" to that question it does not bode well as to their ability to reason without bias.