Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[nonbeliever_92]

The problem with your analogy is that you have tests that show that there is no streptococus bacteria in your throat. That IS evidence. It's evidence because there is a finite search area, and a specific item to search for. The search was done and a conclusion was rendered. In the theological debate regarding the existence of God, the search area is far beyond our reach, and the item being searched for is not specified. As a result, no search can be done, and so no evidence whatever exists.

No evidence is no evidence.

Yes, but if there is no evidence that one has strep throat, then it's reasonable to think that one does not have strep throat and unreasonable to assume that one does. Your wasting time and money if you have the doctor continue to do (ever failing) tests to see if you have strep throat approaching from every which way he possibly could when you clearly don't seem to have strep throat.

If there is no evidence of god (despite the title of this thread) then there's no evidence of god. It'd be reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist, and unreasonable to assume that he does. Your wasting time and money if you continue to make (ever failing) tests to justify and validate a god could possibly exist when clearly he doesn't seem to be based on ever growing counter claims and evidence.

 

[McBell]

Ok, I'll open my mind, show me the "reality" of a god. And please, not the reality that works for you.

make up your mind.

Besides which, how is PureX supposed to know what "reality of a god" works for you?

 

[richardlowellt]

make up your mind.

Besides which, how is PureX supposed to know what "reality of a god" works for you?

I shouldn't have to explain to you how "reality" works, either something is real or it's not, really simple concept, now I have asked him to show me the "reality" of god, I'm patient, I can wait!

 

[Michel07]

I take it on faith that God does not exist in exactly the same way that I take it on faith that Santa Claus does not exist.

What you seem to be saying is that there is no real difference between believing a claim and rejecting belief in it.

Actually Santa Clause was named after St. Nicholaus who did exist but good ol' Santa was marketed for children. By the way Copernicus was a catholic priest who also existed and what I am really saying is that you have no idea whether God exists or not ( unless you are merely in denial) and you base your nonbelief on something other than actual knowledge which would constitute faith in something even if it is only your own understanding.

 

[richardlowellt]

By the way Copernicus was a catholic priest who also existed and what I am really saying is that you have no idea whether God exists or not

And neither do you!

( unless you are merely in denial) and you base your nonbelief on something other than actual knowledge which would constitute faith in something even if it is only your own understanding.

[/QUOTE]You play word games, actual knowledge does not involve faith in something, actual knowledge is just that, knowledge about something or someone based in reality. How can you have knowledge of something that even you know nothing of it's properties. I base my non-belief based on complete lack of evidence, common sense, lack of any knowledge about this being, and reason. You base your belief on things imagined, a poorly written book, the word of others, delusion, and wish thinking. See the difference?

 

[Michel07]

And neither do you!

You play word games, actual knowledge does not involve faith in something, actual knowledge is just that, knowledge about something or someone based in reality. How can you have knowledge of something that even you know nothing of it's properties. I base my non-belief based on complete lack of evidence, common sense, lack of any knowledge about this being, and reason. You base your belief on things imagined, a poorly written book, the word of others, delusion, and wish thinking. See the difference?[/quote]

All you believe in is your self and your own criteria of " evidence, common sense, lack of knowledge about blah blah blah..." So sorry if that's not good enough for me or billions of others. And no, mine are not word games.

 

[richardlowellt]

All you believe in is your self and your own criteria of " evidence, common sense, lack of knowledge about blah blah blah..." So sorry if that's not good enough for me or billions of others. And no, mine are not word games.

[/QUOTE]Hey, it's not my criteria, knowledge is simply FACTS, and INFORMATION acquired through experience or education. EVIDENCE---available body of FACTS that show if a belief is valid or true, no word games here, these are the definitions for the words used. Your mistake is trying to insert your belief into the real or naturalistic realm, they are only your belief, and thats fine, but don't try and infer that somehow these beliefs valid in the real world, they are only valid to you and to those who continue you believe. And yes, the way you use words are in fact playing word games, to say that a non-belief is because one is not aware of the KNOWLEDGE, is a word game, by definition, there is no knowledge of this god thing.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"All you believe in is your self and your own criteria of " evidence, common sense, lack of knowledge about blah blah blah..." So sorry if that's not good enough for me or billions of others. And no, mine are not word games"

You got a god?

Bring it around for a chat; settle this whole matter in a few questions.

Failing that . . . you got superstition. And the fact that you share that superstition with others speaks poorly for ALL of you.

 

[Willamena]

I shouldn't have to explain to you how "reality" works, either something is real or it's not, really simple concept, now I have asked him to show me the "reality" of god, I'm patient, I can wait!

If you have a broken heart, is it real? If you disguise it well, there on your side of the Internet, how would I know its reality even if you told me? Even if I was standing next to you . . .

 

[PureX]

Yes, but if there is no evidence that one has strep throat, ...

There IS evidence that one does not have strep throat. The throat has been searched, and the bacteria is not present. That's the difference.

If there is no evidence of god (despite the title of this thread) then there's no evidence of god. It'd be reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist, and unreasonable to assume that he does.

No, because no evidence is no evidence. It is not reasonable, rational, or logical to draw conclusions from no evidence.

 

[McBell]

No, because no evidence is no evidence. It is not reasonable, rational, or logical to draw conclusions from no evidence.

I agree.
So now that understand that it is unreasonable for you to conclude God exists....

 

[PureX]

Ok, I'll open my mind, show me the "reality" of a god. And please, not the reality that works for you.

Just look in your mirror. The reality of God is as plain as the nose on your face. Literally.

 

[PureX]

I agree.
So now that understand that it is unreasonable for you to conclude God exists....

But I have evidence for the existence of God. It's not proof. It's not conclusive, but it is evidence. So it's not unreasonable, irrational, or illogical for me to choose to believe that there is a God. Keep in mind that I have not "concluded that God exists". I have simply chosen to believe it until I see a reason to choose otherwise. So far no atheist has offered me any reason to choose otherwise. In fact, they offer nothing at all but insults, and a blind insistence that "there is no evidence" when I know that there is evidence. So you can easily see why I have not chosen to change my position on the existence of God.

 

[McBell]

But I have evidence for the existence of God. It's not proof. It's not conclusive, but it is evidence. So it's not unreasonable, irrational, or illogical for me to choose to believe that there is a God. Keep in mind that I have not "concluded that God exists". I have simply chosen to believe it until I see a reason to choose otherwise. So far no atheist has offered me any reason to choose otherwise. In fact, they offer nothing at all but insults, and a blind insistence that "there is no evidence" when I know that there is evidence. So you can easily see why I have not chosen to change my position on the existence of God.

I have to agree with you.
Even though I do not accept your evidence as evidence, i can understand why you do.

Which is one of the main reasons I have pretty much stayed out of this thread.

And thank you for clarifying that for me.

 

[PureX]

I have to agree with you.
Even though I do not accept your evidence as evidence, i can understand why you do.

Which is one of the main reasons I have pretty much stayed out of this thread.

And thank you for clarifying that for me.

I genuinely appreciate your being understanding in this. There will always be issues that human beings can reasonably disagree on; issues for which we have no definitive answer. And thank God for these, as it's these unsolvable mysteries that give us a lot of our choices, and allow us to choose our own way of being. Life would be hell if everyone thought like ME! *haha*

 

[richardlowellt]

If you have a broken heart, is it real? If you disguise it well, there on your side of the Internet, how would I know its reality even if you told me? Even if I was standing next to you . . .

Broken heart? meaning? If you mean I was having some kind of emotional distress then you might very well know I was having a problem, attitude, body language, not acting as I normally would, sure you would know that it's real.

 

[richardlowellt]

Just look in your mirror. The reality of God is as plain as the nose on your face. Literally.

So, my nose is suppose to be some kind of evidence for a god thing? My nose is the result of my genetic makeup passed on to me through my ancestors, beyond that evolution of our species has a lot to do with how we look at this point in time. i suppose a waterfall, a tree, a sunset, and a rainbow are also evidence of this god. The only thing a rainbow does it remind us of what a p---k this god is in committing genocide on a global scale.

 

[PureX]

So, my nose is suppose to be some kind of evidence for a god thing? My nose is the result of my genetic makeup passed on to me through my ancestors, beyond that evolution of our species has a lot to do with how we look at this point in time. i suppose a waterfall, a tree, a sunset, and a rainbow are also evidence of this god. The only thing a rainbow does it remind us of what a p---k this god is in committing genocide on a global scale.

Well, that's just a story, meant to convey a specific group of human being's idea of "God" to their succeeding generations. And actually, the story really wasn't about their "God" so much as it was about human beings and how they behave so self-destructively.

What I meant by that post was that YOU are the reality of "God". You are the result of "God's thought and action" in that you are a result of what happened when the energy of the universe exploded into being.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Just look in your mirror. The reality of God is as plain as the nose on your face. Literally.


But I have evidence for the existence of God. It's not proof. It's not conclusive, but it is evidence.


Those 2 statements are contradictory. Both cannot be true. Either evidence is obvious and conclusive are it is not. The fact that this poster can hold both positions at once w/o any sense of the contradiction shows the depth of his analysis and the accuracy of his reasoning.

 

[richardlowellt]

But I have evidence for the existence of God. It's not proof.

No it's not proof, no is it any kind of evidence...EVIDENCE--FACTS, INFORMATION acquired through experience or education, available body of FACTS that show if a belief is valid. You play word games and use the word evidence i the wrong context, why not just say this is what I believe and leave it at that, rather than try and shoehorn this belief into reality by misused verbiage.

It's not conclusive, but it is evidence. So it's not unreasonable, irrational, or illogical for me to choose to believe that there is a God

. Yes it is, not to you I'm sure, but to those who require EVIDENCE, or some kind of rational, it is most certainly unreasonable, irrational, and illogical.

Keep in mind that I have not "concluded that God exists". I have simply chosen to believe it until I see a reason to choose otherwise. So far no atheist has offered me any reason to choose otherwise

It does seem fruitless to present any number of reason to show the unreasonable position of god figure, any such presentation is usually met with hostility, denial, huge amounts of twisting and turning, and finally, resorting to biblical mumbo jumbo.

In fact, they offer nothing at all but insults, and a blind insistence that "there is no evidence" when I know that there is evidence. So you can easily see why I have not chosen to change my position on the existence of God.

I have found that often times someone who disagrees is accused of insulting your position.