Life From Dirt?

[Aupmanyav]

Haven't you heard that most atheists don't think that God does not exist. They don't know and ask for evidence that science can use and investigate to tell them if God does exist or not.

As I said earlier, no verifiable evidence of existence of God, soul, or those who claim to represent him has ever been found or offered.

Are you saying that therefore that science has shown that there are no gods and that atheist should say that there are no gods?

Again, as I said earlier, for what reason science or any person should believe in something for which no verifiable evidence has ever been given?
You do that, that is fine. Do you believe in pink unicorn also?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem seems to be that you do not understand the concept of subjective.

Actually I do. I know why subjective "evidence" is almost always worthless. Why are you afraid to kearn?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said earlier, no verifiable evidence of existence of God, soul, or those who claim to represent him has ever been found or offered.

And no verifiable evidence of verifiable evidence exists. It is as much a belief system as any other system that claims in effect knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually I do. I know why subjective "evidence" is almost always worthless. Why are you afraid to kearn?

That it is worthless, is subjective. So you do it too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all have our problems.
I do see that someone's subjective experience can be objective for that person.

Then it is you that doesn't understand the concept of subjective. Or objective. You appear to be accusing others of your shortcomings.

 

[Brian2]

FIRST, "Jesus is god" and, " this is what
he looked like" is like a totally christian thing.

Second, you've not a clue what "ancients" thought,
nor do I.
Or maybe we do. People don't change.

Christians clearly thunk their images represent
god. Sometimes the big guy...see Sistine chapel..

Sorry, when I said represent I probably meant that the images looked like their gods.
Represent in some symbolic way is different and we do not know what Jesus looked like, but an picture of a man to represent Jesus sounds fine to me as long as it is seen for what it is, art, and not for what it represents.

Or, like with me and the kitchen god statue I have.
I don't figure there is any kitchen god that actually looks like that.

We also have Hindu art from Bali and Catholic are from when I was growing up.

Noah's ark..

Wouldn't hurt to think it over.
There was no ark. No flood.

To be thought over are the implications
of believing there was.

That's true, and I think it over in an ongoing way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That it is worthless, is subjective. So you do it too.

I said almost always. And context matters. It is rather obvious that we are talking about the ability of that evidence to paint an accurate picture of the world. Does subjective evidence comfort the ignorant!? Yes it can. The question is is that a value?

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, you are playing with words.

Not at all.
I can have an experience that only I have had and for me it is objectively real but I cannot prove it so it is subjective for others.

 

[PureX]

Actually I do. I know why subjective "evidence" is almost always worthless. Why are you afraid to kearn?

Subjective evidence is worthless??? What evidence isn't subjective? Just defining evidence as evidence is a subjective determination. Especially for you believers in the myth of objectivity, I've noticed.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As I said earlier, no verifiable evidence of existence of God, soul, or those who claim to represent him has ever been found or offered.

Not that would satisfy the determined atheist anyway, who has in many cases made up his mind prior to investigation. That there are those believers who can bear witness the verse "Seek, and ye shall find", is of no value to he who will not hear.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I said almost always. And context matters. It is rather obvious that we are talking about the ability of that evidence to paint an accurate picture of the world. Does subjective evidence comfort the ignorant!? Yes it can. The question is is that a value?

That is subjective for the bold. And I suspect you use a double meaning for ignorant, if I had to guess. Namely both objectively descriptive and subjectively evaluation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not at all.
I can have an experience that only I have had and for me it is objectively real but I cannot prove it so it is subjective for others.

Define those 2 words you use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subjective evidence is worthless??? What evidence isn't subjective? Just defining evidence as evidence is a subjective determination. Especially for you believers in the myth of objectivity, I've noticed.

No, you are just following your natural tendency to nihilism again. Testable events provide objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is subjective for the bold. And I suspect you use a double meaning for ignorant, if I had to guess. Namely both objectively descriptive and subjectively evaluation.

Now you are just playing word games.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you are just following your natural tendency to nihilism again. Testable events provide objective evidence.

Well, you are due for a Noble price in effect, if you can show that other than just claiming it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not that would satisfy the determined atheist anyway, who has in many cases made up his mind prior to investigation. That there are those believers who can bear witness the verse "Seek, and ye shall find", is of no value to he who will not hear.

But, by the same standard, there are many determined theists for whom anybody who has sought but not found are simply disqualified as having "not looked hard enough". What the statement "Seek and ye shall find" seems often to mean is less "Investigate yourself and you will find the truth" so much as "Keep searching until you reach the same conclusion as I have, until then I will dismiss any searching you do". At least, that is a fairly common thing that comes up in debates from my perspective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The gospel story is good evidence for me even if I cannot prove it.
Are you saying that because it cannot be proven that means that it is not true?

It is not good enough me or science. We all know that Bible was compiled in the 3rd Century. NT is an addition to an older book.
Sure, if something is not proven, I would not believe it.

Not that would satisfy the determined atheist anyway, who has in many cases made up his mind prior to investigation. That there are those believers who can bear witness the verse "Seek, and ye shall find", is of no value to he who will not hear.

I sought for half my life and found what I needed, but it is not any God. I found the truth in Brahman, 'physical energy', the sole constituent of all that exists in the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you are just playing word games.

Yeah, no evidence given for your use of worthless or value. And you simply deflect as all believers do, when tasked to clarify.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not good enough me or science. We all know that Bible was compiled in the 3rd Century. NT is an addition to an older book.
Sure, if something is not proven, I would not believe it.

Yeah, you are the world and science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And no verifiable evidence of verifiable evidence exists. It is as much a belief system as any other system that claims in effect knowledge.

I do not agree to your view.