There's no evidence that there is a creator?

[Kenny]

Evidence needs to be independent of the person making the claim and verifiable.

riiiight! Eye witnesses are irrelevant for verification.

 

[shunyadragon]

riiiight! Eye witnesses are irrelevant for verification.

Eye witnesses may be evidence, but their needs to be corroborating evidence that may be objectively verified to meet acceptable criteria in the legal system and in science,

Hearing voices as individual or groups alone without objective verifiable evidence does not represent sufficient evidence, and would be thrown out in any court case in our legal system.

See @Thermos aquaticus post #164

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

LOL. It is all around you!

How is it evidence?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

riiiight! Eye witnesses are irrelevant for verification.

People lie and people can be mistaken. This is why forensic evidence has freed people from jail who were put there on the weight of eye witness testimony.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Good point! Of the billions upon billions of [we do not know what to call it] satisfactory conclusions of A plus B equals C there are many fewer examples of A plus B does not equal C.

That would be a logical fallacy.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[savagewind]

So you have no evidence. You know it and I know it, why should anyone believe you?

Nobody should believe me. I can't give a person faith and it takes faith to see the evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nobody should believe me. I can't give a person faith and it takes faith to see the evidence.

If you have evidence there is no need for faith. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. Having evidence is the opposite of faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody should believe me. I can't give a person faith and it takes faith to see the evidence.

That is one hundred percent wrong. Faith is belief without evidence. Faith leads to confirmation bias and acceptance of false evidence. Evidence exists independent of the observer. Now some people may dishonestly claim that evidence does not exist, but once again if they do that they can be shown to be wrong.

A proper definition of terms may help you with your inability to understand the subject. Many theists simply do not understand the concept. That leads to them making errant claims about evidence.

 

[savagewind]

That is one hundred percent wrong. Faith is belief without evidence. Faith leads to confirmation bias and acceptance of false evidence. Evidence exists independent of the observer. Now some people may dishonestly claim that evidence does not exist, but once again if they do that they can be shown to be wrong.

A proper definition of terms may help you with your inability to understand the subject. Many theists simply do not understand the concept. That leads to them making errant claims about evidence.

Any "evidence" might not be real for confirmation. Ever seen The Matrix?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Any "evidence" might not be real for confirmation. Ever seen The Matrix?

If you have to assert that the universe is all make-believe in order to make an argument then I think that gives us a good idea about the quality of your argument.

 

[savagewind]

If you have to assert that the universe is all make-believe in order to make an argument then I think that gives us a good idea about the quality of your argument.

LOL. Good show!

 

[Kenny]

It appears that you are saying that miracles are not real since real events leave behind evidence.

don't know how you arrived to that position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

don't know how you arrived to that position.

That was what your post implied. The problem with "miracles" is that they tend to disappear when investigated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any "evidence" might not be real for confirmation. Ever seen The Matrix?

Yes, great movie. Excellent fantasy. But Neo could ultimately perform on demand. Something that never happens with miracles. In the movie Neo could prove his claims. You need to think about why you can't.

 

[Audie]

Good point! Of the billions upon billions of [we do not know what to call it] satisfactory conclusions of A plus B equals C there are many fewer examples of A plus B does not equal C.

Lets try this. Suppose that them "scientists" come up
with millions and millions of facts that support ToE.

Looks bleak for creationism!

But! Some clever creo finds something that absolutely
cannot be denied, and it is absolutely incompatible with
ToE.

The "cambrian bunny" say. That sort of thing.

Billions of-
A plus B equals C

And one
A plus B does not equal C. The surprise bunny.

How might that affect the ToE? Give it a moment's thought, you may find the answer interesting, worth your time.

 

[Audie]

That was what your post implied. The problem with "miracles" is that they tend to disappear when investigated.

Now subzie that just is not so.;

HOW can it disappear it it never was there in the first place??

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I keep hearing atheist say there's no evidence that God exists.

That is not the way I see it. I see evidence for the existence of God all over the place.

I'm not really seeing much evidence that God is kind to everybody. I actually see evidence that God is quite cruel, and believe he wants us to suffer and die in this life, but give us great reward in the next life. ( As suffering and death glorified Christ, I believe suffering and death will bring us glory. Just my personal belief.)

I'm convinced that God has a select few people that he speaks clear messages to. It seems to me God has favorites.

Just because God doesn't speak to most people clear messages, and just because there's a lot of suffering and misery in the world that God doesn't prevent, doesn't mean there is no evidence that God exists.

If more people vote on this poll that they have seen evidence that God exists, than those who have not seen evidence of God's existence, where do we then turn to determine who is right and who is wrong, regarding whether or not the evidence actually exists?

( in the question in the poll, I'm not just talking about the abrahamic God. If you believe you have seen evidence, that some sort of unseen Supernatural entity, was partially or fully responsible for the creation of Earth and creatures, vote yes)

I've seen "evidence for gods" in the same sense that I've seen evidence for leprechauns or things that are demonstrably false: I can imagine a case being made for the existence of the thing that is based on premises that haven't been demonstrated and established facts. In that sense, I've seen evidence for gods.

For instance, consider the claim "God must exist because he sent the angels that brush my cats while my wife and I are sleeping:" if I didn't have cats, that claim would fail, so we can say that my cats are evidence of God.

By the same token, the existence of my cats is consistent with the claim "God doesn't exist because my cats killed him," so my cats are also evidence for the non-existence of God.

Now... have I ever seen compelling evidence for God? No. Not even once.

 

[Audie]

I agree with @Subduction Zone this response (rant) is not meaningful, because of the sketchy 'argument for ignorance' you are appealing to justify your belief..

You have to agree though that a snarky rant -from-ignorance has such a wonderful irony index.

 

[Audie]

I've seen "evidence for gods" in the same sense that I've seen evidence for leprechauns or things that are demonstrably false: I can imagine a case being made for the existence of the thing that is based on premises that haven't been demonstrated and established facts. In that sense, I've seen evidence for gods.

For instance, consider the claim "God must exist because he sent the angels that brush my cats while my wife and I are sleeping:" if I didn't have cats, that claim would fail, so we can say that my cats are evidence of God.

By the same token, the existence of my cats is consistent with the claim "God doesn't exist because my cats killed him," so my cats are also evidence for the non-existence of God.

Now... have I ever seen compelling evidence for God? No. Not even once.

Compelling? How bout the autumn leaf that was sent by god, to represent the Trinity? Huh???

You didnt SEE that. I did. And I had a nice Christian girl explain it to me. And she even explained what it meant when I showed her the leaf had five parts, not three.

 

[osgart]

Crude intelligence of a vast mental capacity is a better explanation than everything fell just right deterministically or at random, or both.

The potentiality of an infinite regress doesnt strike me as plausible.

Natural selection, and random variation is happenstance fact, but outside of the argument for/against some sort of an intelligent force.

Every time i hear a scientific explanation on the matter it always carrys the , pop!, something from nothing ring to it.
Emergent intelligence, the beginning of the universe, etc.

I cant get it out of my mind, nor do i desire to, that the human body functions fairly well. If the universe was only vast complexity, and randomness, or deterministic it really wouldnt bring about anything that has any functionality, and functionality suited for a purpose; such as to walk.

Theres got to be a guiding force, or a well conditioned universe that makes all this life happen and that spells intelligence.

But what kind of intelligence? Im convinced its very crude, and very vast.

The pale blue dot of the earth was most likely an accident of good fortune, that enabled the life force to create. I wonder how many latent or undetectable forces there are in the universe. I am convinced that life would sprout up everywhere if it had the chance.