What evidence for God

[McBell]

I'll work on that.

Ahhh, how nice.
Divinity in the making.....

 

[Orias]

As I said, and with all subjective speculation aside, there is no evidence that suggests that at any point in the earths history the entire surface of the planet was covered with water.

I agree. There is evidence for NOTHING.

Gibberish again.

What do you mean by perfect? Why are you discussing meteors all of a sudden?

Not one for reading posts are you?

We are alive because we are drying out? Balderdash!

You're right, I shouldn't of been sarcastic, not all people have that ability to distinguish such things.

Why the scare quotes around the word know?

Because we know NOTHING.

Rocks have been found that are much older than the first ocurrance of life here.

I'll give you a drum roll...

I find it amusing that ignorance produces such confidence.

Did you reflect upon yourself while thinking up this statement?

 

[Mellonhead]

I agree. There is evidence for NOTHING.



Not one for reading posts are you?



You're right, I shouldn't of been sarcastic, not all people have that ability to distinguish such things.



Because we know NOTHING.



I'll give you a drum roll...



Did you reflect upon yourself while thinking up this statement?

Could you stop dancing around points and make one please?

 

[bikermandandy]

You do realize that because you claim not to know, that doesn't mean evidence for the non-existence of God. You have to interact with the proof and show it contradictory.

Religion has no argument. you qoute the bible etc.. the bible can be interpreted in any way by anyone, just look the different relgions around the world that inturprite the bible completly differnt to others.

Humans have been making up relgions for thousands of years, look at the old greek mythologies that have been scraped. There are so many relgions in the world, some have to be wrong? How do you answer this?

 

[Orias]

Could you stop dancing around points and make one please?

What is "good" "evidence" for "God"? I would say doubt.

IMO, the post you quoted was of high relevance to a point I directed earlier on. It's just these dang trolls that keep dragging me off course.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

What is "good" "evidence" for "God"? I would say doubt.

IMO, the post you quoted was of high relevance to a point I directed earlier on. It's just these dang trolls that keep dragging me off course.

So, you think "Doubt" which is born of the lack of evidence, is good evidence? Seems kind of circular.

 

[Orias]

So, you think "Doubt" which is born of the lack of evidence, is good evidence? Seems kind of circular.

I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

umm..ok

 

[Axel]

To the original question - What evidence for God.........

Why does one need evidence?

Just believe

 

[Oneatatime]

To the original question - What evidence for God.........

Why does one need evidence?

Just believe

If you want your claim and all that follows from that claim to be taken seriously then you need to back up that claim with evidence.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

If you want your claim and all that follows from that claim to be taken seriously then you need to back up that claim with evidence.

Obviously not, Look at how many religions there are. Millions of people take it seriously and there's never been a single shred of evidence. Of course I'm a synical ******* as I dont accept fairytales as evidence.

 

[waitasec]

To the original question - What evidence for God.........

Why does one need evidence?

Just believe

here's my paypal account number
843 5653 47 66 968

when you transfer $5,000 over to me you will be the proud owner of
a 100 acre lot in napa california...
just believe...it's for real, really!!

 

[tumbleweed41]

To the original question - What evidence for God.........

Why does one need evidence?

Just believe

I have to agree.
As long as that belief does not rely on ignoring empirical evidence in order to support that belief.

There are those who deny or ignore empirical evidence for biological evolution, geology, astrophysics, cosmology, biochemistry, etc..., in order to support their "concept" of God.

This is a belief based on intentional ignorance rather than faith.

Faith should never be blind to reality.

 

[outhouse]

Faith should never be blind to reality.

to often this is not the case

 

[Mellonhead]

To the original question - What evidence for God.........

Why does one need evidence?

Just believe

Well you see- *looks at massive list of people who already answered you*

*sighs* Nevermiiiiiiind

 

[Gaura Priya]

The other thing is, how can you disprove the idea of God, when the very idea of God is elusive in the first place? After all, there is still pantheism, panentheism, deism, pandeism, panendeism, monotheism, and monism.

So even before debunking the idea of God, it would be more fruitful to try to debunk the idea of monotheism, or the idea of monism, or of pantheism, etc.

 

[Mellonhead]

The other thing is, how can you disprove the idea of God, when the very idea of God is elusive in the first place? After all, there is still pantheism, panentheism, deism, pandeism, panendeism, monotheism, and monism.

So even before debunking the idea of God, it would be more fruitful to try to debunk the idea of monotheism, or the idea of monism, or of pantheism, etc.

You don't need to disprove an idea that was put forward with no proof to begin with, no matter how various it is.

If you want to put an idea forward and have it excepted, then you are supposed to support it with proof, simple as that.

 

[Gaura Priya]

You don't need to disprove an idea that was put forward with no proof to begin with, no matter how various it is.

If you want to put an idea forward and have it excepted, then you are supposed to support it with proof, simple as that.

Monism... everything will eventually merge into one essence, one substance.

Is that not exampled in the idea of an imploding universe? (And yet the idea of an imploding universe is still completely assumptive.)

 

[Mellonhead]

Monism... everything will eventually merge into one essence, one substance.

Is that not exampled in the idea of an imploding universe? (And yet the idea of an imploding universe is still completely assumptive.)

The theory of the big bang states that we were expelled from a singularity, not that we have some sort of wizard for a creator.

The a science is there, there is a critical point where things collapse. And there are implosions that take place on smaller scales. Most importantly singularities exist in black holes, so those could support the theory of us coming from one. And then there is proof of extreme circumstances bending space, I see no reason why more extreme ones couldn't stretch it.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The theory of the big bang states that we were expelled from a singularity, not that we have some sort of wizard for a creator.

The a science is there, there is a critical point where things collapse. And there are implosions that take place on smaller scales. Most importantly singularities exist in black holes, so those could support the theory of us coming from one. And then there is proof of extreme circumstances bending space, I see no reason why more extreme ones couldn't stretch it.

You didn't answer my idea of monism, nor did you refute it.

Monism never posited a 'wizard for a creator' nor does it even propose any sort of invisible creator.