Evidence of Divinity

[Pegg]

A challenge/question to the believers out there. What would you name as evidence of God? I am curious, not trying to be condescending.

all physical things are evidence for God imo

Matter could not exist without a guiding intelligence....energy alone cannot create matter nor could it organize matter.

Only something with intelligence could do this.

 

[ametist]

Common eye sight. Looking at a tree two different person will say it is a tree.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

There is an extremely fundamental method employed most often by humans to convey a truth, but without human's own awareness about the existence of such a method.

Since it is the most efficient and most employed method to convey a general truth, if God does exist He should use it to convey His message intended for humans.

And the Christian God employed such a method explicitly to convey the intended message for humans.

1) humans employ a methodology called human witnessing to convey almost each and every claimed truth, but humans they themselves don't realize so

2) God explicitly employed human witnessing (in a valid way) to convey His message of salvation among humans.

In order to reach a truth, humans have to rely on a very small group of humans as the first line witnesses who maintain a direct contact with the truth itself. All other humans choose to believe/or not about what is said by this small group of humans to reach a truth. Almost each and every single piece of truth is reached by humans this way.

To name a few,
You won't acquire direct evidence of the existence of the black holes (or any scientific truth in general). You rely on the scientists (a small group of humans) to work it out for you to believe. You believe the existence of black hole because the multiple accounts of scientific writings said so.

You don't acquire any evidence regarding to the missing Boeing 777, you rely on the multiple accounts of media to reach such a truth. The media is made up of a small group of humans called the reporters/editors/writers.

It is almost impossible for you to acquire any evidence in the distant history of any human nations. You have to rely purely on human witnessing to reach the truth of a specific historical event or figure. You have to believe what is said by a small group of humans regarded as the historians to reach any truth. More likely, if multiple accounts of historians saying the same thing, it's more credible to believe.

In any case, you don't examine any evidence, you just choose to believe what is said by the small group of humans professed in determine the truth. Almost all human knowledge are conveyed this way, that is, through human witnessing. :yes:

If a God exists and He would like His messages to be conveyed among humans, not only He should be able to use this approach, but also He should be able to explicitly name this approach. Humans themselves failed to realize this approach explicitly.

Now among all those religions out there, only the Christian God is capable of doing so. The Bible is explicitly said to be formed by witnessing. Prophets are regarded as God's witnesses. No other human books can explicit apply this concept as the Bible does. The concept of multiple accounts is used explicitly plus that martyrdom is used to validate the human witnessing.

Isaiah 6:9
Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

That method...witnessing...is not effective. And it is as unreliable as a game of Chinese Telephone. God does not need middle men to convey truth, direct revelation is much more effective and reliable.

 

[outhouse]

all physical things are evidence for God imo

Matter could not exist without a guiding intelligence....energy alone cannot create matter nor could it organize matter.

Only something with intelligence could do this.

isnt this nothing more then appealing to ignorance?


You dont know, so god did it.

 

[outhouse]

If you said that about a house, that there is no evidence of a builder, few, if any, would agree with you. The natural world is filled with creative wonders that are complex beyond our ability to understand, and beautiful in form, function, and variety. I cannot accept a house had a builder and that a living cell did not.

Isnt this another appeal to ignorance?


You dont know how nature works, so a god had to do it :areyoucra

 

[Nakosis]

That method...witnessing...is not effective. And it is as unreliable as a game of Chinese Telephone. God does not need middle men to convey truth, direct revelation is much more effective and reliable.

That's basically where I'm coming from as well. Direct revelation.

Then it only good for the person that experienced the revelation. Though a person can witness for their revelation and come across individuals who have shared similar experiences. But there's no reason for people who haven't had such experiences to accept any of this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science could stumble right over a god and they would be like, what the heck was that, I don't know lets measure it.

Conversely, some can stumble right over a perfectly natural phenomenon and they would be like, what the heck, I don't know … let's call it God.

Now, do you have anything of substance to add?

 

[McBell]

If you said that about a house, that there is no evidence of a builder, few, if any, would agree with you. The natural world is filled with creative wonders that are complex beyond our ability to understand, and beautiful in form, function, and variety. I cannot accept a house had a builder and that a living cell did not.

Your inability to understand scientific explanations is not evidence for your god.

 

[Quintessence]

Your inability to understand scientific explanations is not evidence for your god.

Maybe not for you, but this isn't about you. I'll make the same comment to Outhouse here, because he made similarly flippant remarks.

The OP asked for believers (as in theists) to provide their reasoning because he is curious. Whether or not a non-believer accepts it is at best tangential to the intent and purpose of this thread.

 

[Ingledsva]

Maybe not for you, but this isn't about you. I'll make the same comment to Outhouse here, because he made similarly flippant remarks.

The OP asked for believers (as in theists) to provide their reasoning because he is curious. Whether or not a non-believer accepts it is at best tangential to the intent and purpose of this thread.

However, the original post calls it a challenge, and the way the sentence is constructed conveys obvious challengers to the theist respondents.



*

 

[CynthiaCypher]

However, the original post calls it a challenge, and the way the sentence is constructed conveys obvious challengers to the theist respondents.



*

It was a challenge to believers to provide evidence, not a challenge for every wolf to come out of the woods and attack believers.

Go back and read the OP.

 

[Ingledsva]

It was a challenge to believers to provide evidence, not a challenge for every wolf to come out of the woods and attack believers.

Go back and read the OP.

It says it is a challenge/question.


That conveys a back and forth.


"A challenge/question to the believers out there. What would you name as evidence of God? I am curious, not trying to be condescending."


And that "challenge/question," along with, "not trying to be condescending," conveys that the person who posted is of a differing opinion.


- and more then likely is expecting debate on the answers to his question, - on a debate forum.



*



*

 

[Quintessence]

It was a challenge to believers to provide evidence, not a challenge for every wolf to come out of the woods and attack believers.

Go back and read the OP.

I agree, but in fairness, the OP did make the mistake of creating this thread in "general religious debates" instead of "comparative religion."

Mostly, I just find it sad that this wolfish behavior happens, particularly when it seems to be a simple put-down instead of a door-opener to facilitate understanding.

So a suggestion: maybe the non-theists can create a thread where they can express what kinds of theistic claims they find incredulous? Heck, I have a few of those myself.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So a suggestion: maybe the non-theists can create a thread where they can express what kinds of theistic claims they find incredulous? Heck, I have a few of those myself.

I would certainly appreciate it if one did create a thread as you suggest. Let's see if anyone takes you up on your challenge.

 

[Makaranda]

What would you name as evidence of God? I am curious, not trying to be condescending.

One's own self, properly understood, is the best evidence for God, in my view.

 

[Ingledsva]

I forgot to add that Outhouse is not being a "wolf" here.


Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance,) is a real, and logical, debate challenge in this case.



*

 

[CynthiaCypher]

One's own self, properly understood, is the best evidence for God, in my view.

Shhhhh....you're going to give away the secret.

 

[McBell]

Maybe not for you, but this isn't about you. I'll make the same comment to Outhouse here, because he made similarly flippant remarks.

The OP asked for believers (as in theists) to provide their reasoning because he is curious. Whether or not a non-believer accepts it is at best tangential to the intent and purpose of this thread.

My apologies.
I shall bow out of your "anything that makes me feel good goes" thread.

 

[Ingledsva]

I agree, but in fairness, the OP did make the mistake of creating this thread in "general religious debates" instead of "comparative religion."

Mostly, I just find it sad that this wolfish behavior happens, particularly when it seems to be a simple put-down instead of a door-opener to facilitate understanding.

So a suggestion: maybe the non-theists can create a thread where they can express what kinds of theistic claims they find incredulous? Heck, I have a few of those myself.

I don't think it was actually a "wolfish" attack.


It is an appeal, that anyone that has taken Debate classes, knows.


Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance.)


Add on: I thought I should add, before someone gets insulted, - that the "ignorance" does not mean the person debating.


In other words, it basically is someone saying something like , - since you don't know, ultimately, how the Universe began, - it somehow has to be a God, or Gods. Which of course logically it doesn't.


*

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think it was actually a "wolfish" attack. It is an appeal, that anyone that has taken Debate classes, knows. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance.)

Sure, but there are cordial ways to say it and crass ways to say it. When I see crass behavior, my manners alarm goes off and I tend to react a little sour to it. Sorry.

More importantly, the OP gives me the impression that this thread was not intended for formal debate or to tear to shreds - with the laundry list of logical fallacies - every theists's heartfelt reasons for following the path that they do.

But like I said, if respectful sharing (not debate!) was the OP's intent, putting the thread in a debate subforum unfortunately opens the door for (with respect to the intent of the thread intent) tangential and irrelevant naysaying. It is what it is, which is something that will probably begin to smell a little off.

Speaking of tangents, I'm officially done with this one. No disrespect intended if I do not address any additional drumming-up.