Evidence

[John53]

O

..whereas you .. you'd better hope you are not asked.

Threats... charming.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Almighty God is aware of what is in our hearts.
He knows whether people are just careless, or whether they disbelieve.

I have a Muslim name and a Christian name .. it is not my name which defines my religion .. it's my intentions and actions.

That was not my point at all.

 

[Alien826]

So what? The fact that people have different religions and have different beliefs about God is not evidence against the existence of God, not by any stretch of the imagination. The point is that 93% of people believe in God.

I agree. What it is very strong evidence for is that nobody has a very clear idea of what God is (or is like). Remember the story of the blind people and the elephant? They all felt different parts of the elephant and all came up with different conclusions as to what the elephant was. And this is exactly what would be expected, given what we discussed about God making himself difficult to understand (or simply being difficult to understand).

The fact that people have different beliefs about God is a separate topic, and there is a logical explanation as to why people have different beliefs about God, since many different religions have been revealed over the course of history, and these religions portrayed God differently.

I know you have a different explanation, but that seems to me to suggest that the revelations were inaccurate in various ways. Fair enough really.

 

[F1fan]

Almighty God is aware of what is in our hearts.

OK, prove this version of God exists, and then prove that it's aware of what is in our hearts.

He knows whether people are just careless, or whether they disbelieve.

And this will be the thrid thing you prove to us is a fact, not just religious belief that you could be mistaken about, and thus irrelevant to anyone else.

I have a Muslim name and a Christian name .. it is not my name which defines my religion .. it's my intentions and actions.

If you intend to say things on a public forum as if they are true will you back it up with evidence? So far it seems you don't.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Oh, plenty of evidence has been shown.
..but you don't want to see it .. you can't see it .. it doesn't exist.

..when asked by my Lord on the day of judgment, "who is your Lord?", I have my answer ready .. no hesitation, God willing.
..whereas you .. you'd better hope you are not asked.

Pascal's wager is a weak argument, in my view. The wager's gist is that, according to Blaise Pascal, a person can't know the existence of God solely through reason, so the wise thing for them to do is to live their life as if God exists because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. They will gain heaven if they live as if God exists, but they'll lose nothing if God doesn't exist. If, on the other hand, they live their life as if God doesn't exist when he actually does, then they will gain hell and punishment while losing heaven.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, prove this version of God exists..

Why should I have to do that, when if God wills, you would believe?

, and then prove that it's aware of what is in our hearts..

Do you think that it is impossible that your thoughts can be known?
Can you prove that?

If you intend to say things on a public forum as if they are true will you back it up with evidence?

No, because this is a religious debate, and it is not about "scientific proof" .. it's more about theological determinations.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You raise a fair point. I don't think most believers really believe in God because if they did, they would fear God, as I do, and they would not be breaking the Laws of their religions. I think a fair number of believers just like the idea of believing in God, without any of the responsibilities, and many of them say they believe to get the reward they believe they will be getting.

See, I believe the hilighted bit is all wrong. The parents I might have loved (never had them, instead was abused by others) are those -- not who I feared, but who I trusted. Parents I knew would try (as best they could) not to lead me astray, but who would not try to kill me (as a stepfather did twice).

 

[muhammad_isa]

Pascal's wager is a weak argument, in my view. The wager's gist is that, according to Blaise Pascal, a person can't know the existence of God solely through reason, so the wise thing for them to do is to live their life as if God exists because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose..

The problem is that if a person inclines to disbelief, they won't take a blind bit of notice .. one becomes devoid of reason, and intent on opposing belief at all costs.
..so Pascal's wager, whether it is a reasonable proposition or not, cannot be realised.

 

[F1fan]

Why should I have to do that, when if God wills, you would believe?

Because you made a declarative statement that a God exists and performs an action, but you didn't qualify it as just your belief or something you interpreted from a book, so that means you will be asked for evidence that your statement is true. If you refuse that suggests you can't explain to others how you arrived at your conclusion, and we reject it by default.

Do you think that it is impossible that your thoughts can be known?
Can you prove that?

I readily post my thoughts on this forum, and it is easy for people of average intelligence and above to understand what I'm saying. There's no evidence of any gods existing that can read posts or minds, so we reject your claim by default until you can clarify you are being truthful.

No, because this is a religious debate, and it is not about "scientific proof" .. it's more about theological determinations.

Evidence is evidence, and you don't get to reject the normal standard only because it forces you into a sitution that you can't defend your fantastic and implausible beliefs.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, they do.
..and atheists believe their nonsense in a similar fashion.

I'm quite confident that you and the atheists in this thread have very different ideas about what nonsense is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, they do.
..and atheists believe their nonsense in a similar fashion.

I am always curious what "nonsense" do you think that is? I could give you quite a few examples with Christianity. I am sure that an ex-Muslim could do the same with Islam. And though hard atheists can make some very good arguments at times it is a good idea that most atheists merely lack a belief. We keep saying "Show us reliable evidence and we will change our minds" and we only get logical fallacies and confirmation bias. I do not see any "belief" there at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I "don't want to find out or seek to see if there is a God." Neither do I want to find out and seek if there is a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Sauron or Saruman, banshees, trolls, elves, goblins (and hobgoblins), Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Jinn, demons, Satan, Loch Ness monsters, Yetis, Bigfoot or Chupacabras.

And every one of them for the very same reason.

Now, in that context -- what would make you want to seek to see if there is a God, and not a Yeti?

I never wondered or though there is a yeti, whatever that is. I did think there might be demons, but I didn't know much about it. Although fortune tellers and witches frightened me so I did not gravitate/move thowards them.
I did wonder about God. Even though I had trouble believing in Him or finding Him, and with all the confusion with religion I finally gave up. So I figured God just is not.. And I gave up the search. However -- now I believe there is a God but it was a journey, before and after.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We keep saying "Show us reliable evidence and we will change our minds"..

The trouble is, that these are empty claims .. they can never be realised.

Nobody is here to convince you of anything. It is up to you to decide for yourself what is "reliable evidence".

We can merely show you what WE consider to be reliable evidence ... if you don't agree, then "end of".

 

[F1fan]

The trouble is, that these are empty claims .. they can never be realised.

Empty claims include faith-based claims, which include religious belief. When you stated that a God exists and performs some action you made a fainth-based claim. We know by exverience that such declarations are not factual, nor likely true. Believers sometimes try to justify their claims, but given the lack of credible evdiene they fail. You don't even make the effort. So we reject your empty claims by default.

Nobody is here to convince you of anything. It is up to you to decide for yourself what is "reliable evidence".

In debate there is an expectation to respect the process by those who engage with others. Your aproach is more like trolling, and you seem to make statements as if to bait people into responses so you can be rebellious and refuse to answer requests for evidence. You're not the only theist to do this, and I'm always curious if they are looking for attention in this way from people they don't otherwise have contact with in life.

We can merely show you what WE consider to be reliable evidence ... if you don't agree, then "end of".

The "evidence" tyical of theists is weak and tends to hinge on making dubious assumptions, like a God existing, or a hrophet being authentic, or a book saying such and such, etc. These are easily shown to be invalid. What lacks is basic evidence of a supernatural. Theists can't even show that a supernatural is plausible, let alone exists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Evidence is evidence, and you don't get to reject the normal standard only because it forces you into a sitution that you can't defend your fantastic and implausible beliefs.

If they were so fantastic and implausible, then it makes no sense for people to "swear on the Bible" in a courtroom.

What you are doing, in effect, is saying that your ancestors were ignorant, for creating such a legal system.
Almighty God knows best who are the ignorant ones.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I am always curious what "nonsense" do you think that is? I could give you quite a few examples with Christianity. I am sure that an ex-Muslim could do the same with Islam. And though hard atheists can make some very good arguments at times it is a good idea that most atheists merely lack a belief. We keep saying "Show us reliable evidence and we will change our minds" and we only get logical fallacies and confirmation bias. I do not see any "belief" there at all.

Personally, I believe that what you described is a problem for most people who follow Abrahamic religions because they claim that their religion is the only true religion or that they have irrefutable evidence of God's existence (as the OP attempted with his claim of finalizing what is evidence of God). When asked to provide that evidence, however, they often go on the defensive and stumble with ad nauseam excuses, accusations, and logical fallacies. I'm beginning to think that there's no point trying to engage them in debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The trouble is, that these are empty claims .. they can never be realised.

Nobody is here to convince you of anything. It is up to you to decide for yourself what is "reliable evidence".

We can merely show you what WE consider to be reliable evidence ... if you don't agree, then "end of".

Then you might want to listen to the responses a bit better. It has been explained to you why what you have is not "reliable evidence". buy saying that "it can never be realized" (fixed that spelling for you) you are in effect stating that you do not have any reliable evidence. Perhaps you might want to rethink your response.

Also the OP sure felt that he had some "evidence". If you don't have any reliable evidence why even try?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

If they were so fantastic and implausible, then it makes no sense for people to "swear on the Bible" in a courtroom.

Maybe you've watched too many fictional crime dramas on television because people are not legally required to place their right hand on a Bible in order to swear to tell the truth in court. I've been involved in a couple of cases where I was called to testify, and I wasn't required either time to place my right hand on the Bible and swear on it. I was only required to raise my right hand and "affirm" that I would tell the truth. However, swearing on a Bible before testifying in a courtroom is an option for people, but it isn't legally required.

Do you still swear on a Bible in court?

Do you have to swear to God in court?

Can you refuse to swear on the Bible?

 

[F1fan]

If they were so fantastic and implausible, then it makes no sense for people to "swear on the Bible" in a courtroom.

You know that's not a requirement anymore.

What you are doing, in effect, is saying that your ancestors were ignorant, for creating such a legal system.

No, I'm saying theists have a behavioral pattern of making outlandish claims they can't demonstrate are true.

Almighty God knows best who are the ignorant ones.

Here is a prime example.

 

[John53]

Maybe you've watched too many fictional crime dramas on television because people are not legally required to place their right hand on a Bible in order to swear to tell the truth in court. I've been involved in a couple of cases where I was called to testify, and I wasn't required either time to place my right hand on the Bible and swear on it. I was only required to raise my right hand and "affirm" that I would tell the truth. However, swearing on a Bible before testifying in a courtroom is an option for people, but it isn't legally required.

Do you still swear on a Bible in court?

Do you have to swear to God in court?

Can you refuse to swear on the Bible?

And it's useless anyway. There's an awful lot of lies told in court. The fact that a case is in court usually means someone is lying, swearing on a stack of bibles isn't going to make them change.