Evidence for God

[viole]

..and that is purely an assumption.

Yes, and as long as assumptions about lack of evidence are not countered, by actually showing some evidence bigger than zero, they hold. That is the whole point.

You make the positive claim. You have to show us what evidence that claim has. That is particularly important for claimers holding to a particular kind of God. Like the Christian God. Or the Muslim God.

So, what have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..and that is purely an assumption.

No, there is no evidence of a certain type. Of another type, that is all you like as you like it. Yet then I can do it differently as I like it.
The former is objective and the latter is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and as long as assumptions about lack of evidence are not countered, by actually showing some evidence bigger than zero, they hold. That is the whole point.

You make the positive claim. You have to show us what evidence that claim has. That is particularly important for claimers holding to a particular kind of God. Like the Christian God. Or the Muslim God.

So, what have you got?

Ciao

- viole

That is not limited to God. It also goes for this thought is X and not non-X. See what I did there?!!
So if a thought is X, give the evidence.

So you can assume that God is X, or you can assume that a thought is X. Same general case. Positive claim and that requires evidence.

 

[viole]

That is not limited to God. It also goes for this thought is X and not non-X. See what I did there?!!
So if a thought is X, give the evidence.

So you can assume that God is X, or you can assume that a thought is X. Same general case. Positive claim and that requires evidence.

Who cares? The OP here is about God's evidence, not that evidence is in general a moot concept. The latter being a possible subject of a different thread.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who cares? The OP here is about God's evidence, not that evidence is in general a moot concept. The latter being a possible subject of a different thread.

Ciao

- viole

So the type of evidence for God is a special kind and not a general concept applicable to all claims?

Okay, give evidence for that.

 

[viole]

So the type of evidence for God is a special kind and not a general concept applicable to all claims?

Okay, give evidence for that.

I will do that when you show to me that everything you write is rational

As I said, I am not the one needing to provide evidence of anything, within the context of the OP.

The OP is challenging atheists claiming there is no evidence for God, on account of atheists not knowing what God is. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to show that evidence is not rationally attainable, be my guest. I just hope you will be able to do that in a rational way without undermine anything you say.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will do that when you show to me that everything you write is rational

As I said, I am not the one needing to provide evidence of anything, within the context of the OP.

The OP is challenging atheists claiming there is no evidence for God, on account of atheists not knowing what God is. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to show that evidence is not rationally attainable, be my guest. I just hope you will be able to do that in a rational way without undermine anything you say.

Ciao

- viole

So you believe everything a human can do is rational in regards to at least writing something.
That also applies to you. So you have to prove as a positive claim that anything you write is rational.

See, I know how to make your claims general and also about you.
As for evidence it is a general method for X is Y and thus not limited to atheists and religious people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes..
...
You make the positive claim. You have to show us what evidence that claim has. That is particularly important for claimers holding to a particular kind of God. Like the Christian God. Or the Muslim God.

So, what have you got?

You know what I've got, but you are not interested.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, there is no evidence of a certain type..

We all know that..

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I said, I am not the one needing to provide evidence of anything, within the context of the OP.

Yes, you do..
You have to show us that there is no evidence for God .. never mind the kind of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you do..
You have to show us that there is no evidence for God .. never mind the kind of evidence.

I can't. I have evidence for my God and thus you will not get into Heaven, because my God is the true God for all humans.
And now, you have to shown that I have no evidence for God. Good luck with that.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, you do..
You have to show us that there is no evidence for God .. never mind the kind of evidence.

I can do that for one kind of evidence, scientific evidence. All scientific evidence is compiled in scientific journals which are publicly accessible. So I can search those journals and if I don't find evidence there, I know that it doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can do that for one kind of evidence, scientific evidence. All scientific evidence is compiled in scientific journals which are publicly accessible. So I can search those journals and if I don't find evidence there, I know that it doesn't exist.

Yes and I can do that for a scientific teaching site:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

And get a different result that you get and we both use science. Now what?

 

[viole]

Yes, you do..
You have to show us that there is no evidence for God .. never mind the kind of evidence.

No, I do not. The OP is very clear. Apparently you did not read it. Or you did not understand it. Or both.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You know what I've got, but you are not interested.

Yes, you have Jesus. But how do I know that you are right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

So you believe everything a human can do is rational in regards to at least writing something.
That also applies to you. So you have to prove as a positive claim that anything you write is rational.

See, I know how to make your claims general and also about you.
As for evidence it is a general method for X is Y and thus not limited to atheists and religious people.

I will respond to this only when you confirm to me that this is rational.
Is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I do not. The OP is very clear. Apparently you did not read it. Or you did not understand it. Or both.

Ciao

- viole

Or read this.

Evidence for God

It is not difficult. That isn the main reason theism is mooch more widespread than atheism. Ciao - viole No, but both are natural. You see if everything is natural, then that I am mocking you with that, is natural. All the positives and negatives as true/false, right/wrong...

www.religiousforums.com

I know I am rational, is covered by that version of knowledge as connected to evidence.
We don't have a special unique version of knowledge and evidence for God and another one for you as rational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will respond to this only when you confirm to me that this is rational.
Is it?

Ciao

- viole

Well, I am not sure what your standard of rational is, so for me to answer as you want it, I need to know that. Is that rational?

 

[CG Didymus]

But you claim to know what a god is and I challenge that claim.

Well, then I suggest you gave us a definition of God, and we analyze the evidence thereof.

So, let's get through those attributes and submit the evidence to rational scrutiny.

That is a claim without evidence and a claim that will be contested by many god believers. You stumble at the first hurdle of epistemology, even before you have given any attributes.

I just started reading the posts in this thread and like the questions you two have asked.

As if each religion defines their Gods and Goddesses the same... no, they are all different. And a religion like the Baha'i Faith rejects most all of those other definitions of who and what God is, especially the one believed by some Christians that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yep. I want to know how you came to the conclusion that the "messengers" knew?
Without such an explanation of the steps in your logic, it remains an unevidenced claim.

This "messenger" thing is a Baha'i belief. Do all the people that Baha'is claim to be "messengers" agree on who and what God is? No. But, of course, Baha'is have an explanation of why they are different.