Evidence God Is

[nPeace]

My opinion is evidenced. Why shouldn't I promote it as fact?

What evidence do you have that my faith is based on hallucination or delusion? Let's see it.

 

[Bear Wild]

What evidence do you have that my faith is based on hallucination or delusion? Let's see it.

When you present your myths as evidence the same as scientific evidence.

 

[nPeace]

When you present your myths as evidence the same as scientific evidence.

That's opinion, not evidence. Want to try again?
By the way. It not wise to throw stones when you live in a glass house.
The whale evolution myth is the biggest in history - a subset of its parent myth, and yet that is presented a scientific evidence.

 

[Bear Wild]

That's opinion, not evidence. Want to try again?
By the way. It not wise to throw stones when you live in a glass house.
The whale evolution myth is the biggest in history - a subset of its parent myth, and yet that is presented a scientific evidence.

What real evidence that has any support have you presented?

 

[nPeace]

What real evidence that has any support have you presented?

Pardon me?

 

[Valjean]

What evidence do you have that my faith is based on hallucination or delusion? Let's see it.

You have a fixed, irrational and inflexible belief, impervious to contrary evidence. If it weren't accepted within your status community it would be diagnostic of 'delusional disorder'.

Wiki: "A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background."

Dictionary.com: 4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:

 

[nPeace]

You have a fixed, irrational and inflexible belief, impervious to contrary evidence. If it weren't accepted within your status community it would be diagnostic of 'delusional disorder'.

Wiki: "A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background."

Dictionary.com: 4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:

Yes you definitely are fooled, and you continue to fool yourself, and additionally God let's you remain fooled, so that makes you well fooled.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12)
11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[metis]

Wiki: "A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background."

Exactly, and one can all too easily fall into that trap if they tend to think that the traditional subjective Asians of two thousand years ago think and write like the objective-minded westerners of today.
And our knowledge of the above is clear when we remember that the prophets and Jesus went into the wilderness for many days on end. What we they doing there, playing Parcheesi? No, it relates to prayer, meditation, and contemplation, and in the Christian tradition it is also to allow the Holy Spirit to help give us with what we need to believe and follow in God's path.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you definitely are fooled, and you continue to fool yourself, and additionally God let's you remain fooled, so that makes you well fooled.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12)
11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

Wow! It sounds as if you are blaming God for people's confusion. So God plants false information so that people will doubt him. Why does your God lie that way?

 

[Milton Platt]

Okay.
So, first of all, you made this up...
"...in fact, there is evidence which can be construed to be evidence for every god ever proposed."
That's not true at all, is it?
So therefore you can't support that claim.

Secondly, invisible does not mean exists on, or resides on the earth.
So it's unreasonable for one to think they must see God literally with their eyes.

Thirdly, I made no extraordinary claim. I said, "If we can establish that the Bible is truly authentic, by careful analysis, then we have objective evidence God is."
How is that an extraordinary claim?

You have completely missed the point. I was trying with the dragon in the garage story to illustrate that the more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence to support the claim is. The scenario was to illustrate an idea.

I don't think you can establish that the Bible is truly authentic. It is a selection of stories chosen by men from a much larger group of stories because they seemed to hang together a bit better than the others, which were sometimes more fantastical or introduced elements which those gathering the stories disagreed with. The bible is not evidence for a god. It cannot possibly be. It is evidence that a small group of people in the middle east long ago believed in this particular god. You cannot possibly verify any of the supposed miracles. Did a guy named Jesus live back then? Possibly. Did he have followers? Possibly. But that is as far as you can get, really. I will gladly grant you both of those for the sake of the conversation. But even if you managed to objectively verify the miracles, you still have not demonstrated what the cause was.

 

[Milton Platt]

@Milton Platt I want to say this though, in response you your assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
The misuse of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge.

There is nothing new or innovative about Christianity. I have no idea what you are getting at here.

 

[nPeace]

You have completely missed the point. I was trying with the dragon in the garage story to illustrate that the more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence to support the claim is. The scenario was to illustrate an idea.

I don't think you can establish that the Bible is truly authentic. It is a selection of stories chosen by men from a much larger group of stories because they seemed to hang together a bit better than the others, which were sometimes more fantastical or introduced elements which those gathering the stories disagreed with. The bible is not evidence for a god. It cannot possibly be. It is evidence that a small group of people in the middle east long ago believed in this particular god. You cannot possibly verify any of the supposed miracles. Did a guy named Jesus live back then? Possibly. Did he have followers? Possibly. But that is as far as you can get, really. I will gladly grant you both of those for the sake of the conversation. But even if you managed to objectively verify the miracles, you still have not demonstrated what the cause was.

I presented some evidence here. How can you refute it?
Here is some additional evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented some evidence here. How can you refute it?
Here is some additional evidence.

Rather than a Gish Gallop how about you pick out your best piece of evidence and then it can be discussed. I have a feeling that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

 

[Milton Platt]

I presented some evidence here. How can you refute it?
Here is some additional evidence.

The first link is just bible quotes. NOT evidence for a god. Only evidence for a belief in a god by ancient people.
The second link is a series of quotes taken out of context. Read the chapters they are in and you will see they are cherry-picked quotes taken out of context.

 

[nPeace]

The first link is just bible quotes. NOT evidence for a god. Only evidence for a belief in a god by ancient people.

No. Maybe you skipped through it.

The second link is a series of quotes taken out of context. Read the chapters they are in and you will see they are cherry-picked quotes taken out of context.

I have read all the chapters, more than a dozen times.
You are merely making statements with no apparent basis.

That's offering no valid argument really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Maybe you skipped through it.


I have read all the chapters, more than a dozen times.
You are merely making statements with no apparent basis.

That's offering no valid argument really.

No, he was quite right. You offered no evidence. You do not even seem to understand the idea. So let me help you. This is from Wikipedia's article on scientific evidence but if you do not like them I can find quite a few others that say thing:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Let me explain this to you. The first think that you need to have scientific evidence is a scientific theory or hypothesis, that means a testable idea. It has to a reasonable test, one which could possibly refute the idea if it is wrong. And it must be on the idea's own merits. Not on the merit of another idea. For example "If evolution is proven that refutes my idea". That would not be a proper test. You are trying to shift the test to another idea. If you cannot think of a reasonable test for your idea then you simply cannot have any evidence for it. All that you have at best is an ad hoc explanation and those are worthless.


Second, you need an observation. Preferably an empirical one. Then you have to show that that observation either supports or opposes the hypothesis or theory being discussed. That means if you want to have evidence against the theory of evolution you need to explain how an observation is contrary to what is predicted by the theory. Odds are that you will end up making endless strawmen here. Your misinterpretation of the theory will not make your observations evidence against it. And if someone presents an observation that matches what the theory predicts then like it or not that is evidence for the theory. Once that happens the burden of proof that it is not evidence is shifted to you. Good luck.

 

[nPeace]

No, he was quite right. You offered no evidence. You do not even seem to understand the idea. So let me help you. This is from Wikipedia's article on scientific evidence but if you do not like them I can find quite a few others that say thing:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Let me explain this to you. The first think that you need to have scientific evidence is a scientific theory or hypothesis, that means a testable idea. It has to a reasonable test, one which could possibly refute the idea if it is wrong. And it must be on the idea's own merits. Not on the merit of another idea. For example "If evolution is proven that refutes my idea". That would not be a proper test. You are trying to shift the test to another idea. If you cannot think of a reasonable test for your idea then you simply cannot have any evidence for it. All that you have at best is an ad hoc explanation and those are worthless.


Second, you need an observation. Preferably an empirical one. Then you have to show that that observation either supports or opposes the hypothesis or theory being discussed. That means if you want to have evidence against the theory of evolution you need to explain how an observation is contrary to what is predicted by the theory. Odds are that you will end up making endless strawmen here. Your misinterpretation of the theory will not make your observations evidence against it. And if someone presents an observation that matches what the theory predicts then like it or not that is evidence for the theory. Once that happens the burden of proof that it is not evidence is shifted to you. Good luck.

No, but I have offered evidence.
You want to discuss scientific evidence... Okay.
First, a hypothetical... I propose there is an intelligent designer with supernatural abilities, whom is responsible for the universe and life in it.
What say yo, science guy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but I have offered evidence.
You want to discuss scientific evidence... Okay.
First, a hypothetical... I propose there is an intelligent designer with supernatural abilities, whom is responsible for the universe and life in it.
What say yo, science guy?

Tell us what reasonable test could refute your "hypothesis" if it is wrong?

The quality of the so called evidence that you have offered to say the least has been lacking. Scientific evidence puts a rather low hurdle to cross. But I bet that low hurdle is still too much for you.

 

[nPeace]

Tell us what reasonable test could refute your "hypothesis" if it is wrong?

Exactly!

The quality of the so called evidence that you have offered to say the least has been lacking. Scientific evidence puts a rather low hurdle to cross. But I bet that low hurdle is still too much for you.

Huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly!

Not "exactly". If you can't think of such a test then by definition you have no scientific evidence.

Huh?

As I have pointed out so often, understanding what is and what is not reliable evidence would help you immensely. You have not been able to provide any,.