What evidence for God

[RitalinO.D.]

Everyone defines "Him". And apparently he has finger prints

Orias, i have to admit you are frustrating sometimes, as your posts tend to be a tad cryptic. This may be due to you having some level of intelligence I do not posess, I don't know. Maybe you do it on purpose to confuse the simpletons. However, It would be grand if you could just relay your message or point in a more lamen fashion so I can better understand your meaning.

I mean after all, I'm just a lowly network tech in the AF. No higher learning here.

 

[Orias]

Orias, i have to admit you are frustrating sometimes, as your posts tend to be a tad cryptic. This may be due to you having some level of intelligence I do not posess, I don't know. Maybe you do it on purpose to confuse the simpletons. However, It would be grand if you could just relay your message or point in a more lamen fashion so I can better understand your meaning.

It is only crptical to those who wish to add more meaning to my words than I do

Though I must admit, I can be a bit scatter brained at times. I often find it amusing when people claim that I do not understand, or that I make no sense, or that I am inconsistent. The obligation is on this side of the table, completely.

I have observed that one is at the mercy of the Opposition once they have started turning sincerity into riddles. Only the one that misunderstands could accuse the other of misunderstanding.

But, back on topic. To direct my point, by "everyone defines Him", I simply mean that everyone has an image of what "God" is, simply because if one did not have an image of what "God" is, the label would not exist and be used by theists and non-theists alike.

And by fingerprints...hehe, they say we were created in the image of "God", which leads me to believe that "God" doesn't believe in any other "God(s)" and he must view himself as a "God". That's pretty much the definition of Satanism right there, his fingerprints are my fingerprints, they are your's, the cloud's and the dust that will be our legacy.

I mean after all, I'm just a lowly network tech in the AF. No higher learning here.

Ha, I am but a highschool moron. Don't pity yourself.

 

[Willamena]

Well, anything. It's vacuously true that if "I" is the same thing as reality, all experiences originate from "me." That doesn't tell us anything about the normal meaning of "I", though.

It's helpful for understanding revelation.

 

[Wombat]

Compilation post-
1/Proposition/assertion- There exists on this board a predisposition among Atheist contributors to take the single word ‘evidence’ and change, extrapolate, project and insist that word automatically and exclusively pertains to “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence”
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
ev·i·dence

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Here is the >evidence< of Proposition/assertion 1/. Please note, this evidence, though it exists and though it is clear, does not constitute or seek to represent &#8220;objective empirical evidence&#8221;/ &#8220;scientific evidence&#8221; but rather to demonstrate that not all evidence fits such criteria nor should be expected to...

Evidence of 1/-

&#8220;Hearsay is hardly evidence of God. And it is surely not objective empirical evidence.&#8221;#737

No claim was made that &#8220;Hearsay&#8221; constituted evidence of God, no reference to &#8220;objective empirical evidence&#8221; prior to this point.

&#8220;Sleight of hand? No, simply clarification.&#8221; #751 Tumbleweed41

No. You don&#8217;t get to change the statement I was responding to and call that &#8220;clarification&#8221; especially when you did not make the original statement.
Let&#8217;s look at the &#8216;evidence&#8217;...here is the original quote and my response-
&#8220;but there's no evidence to support a god,&#8221; Mellonhead #712
&#8220;Once more and yet again the ongoing confusion between "evidence" and 'proof'. Wombat #715
Now, since that point I have three atheists introducing, projecting and insisting &#8220;objective empirical&#8221; and &#8220;scientific&#8221; prior to &#8216;evidence&#8217; >as if< that was a &#8220;clarification&#8221; and/or must be the criteria.
Guys...no...you don&#8217;t get to leap on the single word &#8216;evidence&#8217; and own it as automatically and exclusively pertaining to science.
The &#8216;evidence&#8217; available to and employed by an Historian is not the same as that employed/sought in a Lab.
Likewise in Law and Law enforcement there is a wide range of &#8216;evidence&#8217; considered that is both objective and subjective- &#8216;motive, means and opportunity&#8217; being three examples of &#8216;evidence&#8217; available that do not fit the imposed criteria- &#8220;objective empirical/scientific&#8221;

&#8220;There is objective empirical evidence that cannot be reasonably denied.
And there is subjective evidence that is highly prone to each individuals interpretation.&#8221; #751


Yes, never said or suggested otherwise. Simply do not pretend that in daily life and a host of professional occupations- (Historians, police, juries, parents, lovers..) do not make a host of rational and logical assessments of available &#8216;evidence&#8217; that are not- &#8220;objective empirical/ scientific&#8221;

"It is hardly a fallacy for someone to say there is no evidence for God. There isn't." #751


So (Ya&#8217;ll) keep saying...and as long as you change, lock down and tunnel vision the word/notion &#8216;evidence&#8217; to automatically and exclusively mean &#8220;objective empirical/ scientific&#8221; you&#8217;re on a winner.
But that is >not< what 'evidence' means nor is that the exclusive domain of 'evidence' nor is that the manner, means and way in which people consider and employ 'evidence' every day.

"The fallacy is to lower the standards of evidence to subjectivity". #751
The fallacy is to pretend that reasonable rational subjective assessments of &#8216;evidence&#8217; do not occur every day.
The punter in the Casino rolls cats eyes...the staff do not blink.
The punter rolls cats eyes again...&#8221;Unusual&#8221; think the staff
The punter rolls cats eyes three times in a row...that, in the subjective rule of thumb calculation of probability by the staff, is &#8216;evidence&#8217; that something may be going on and further evidence sought.
But if you want to make - &#8220;objective empirical/ scientific evidence&#8221; God...then there is no evidence and no reason for the staff to be even suspicious.

&#8220;As for your comments about evidence while it was not explcitely stated in the original post that they were seeking scientific evidence this it the most reliable type of evidence available and therefore ideally the form it should take.&#8221; #755 &#8216;Oneatatime

&#8220;not explcitely stated&#8221;!!??...It was not stated or implied >at all<...the statement &#8220;in the original post&#8221; was broad, general and blanket- &#8220;there's no evidence to support a god&#8221;
While I have one Atheist insisting &#8220;scientific evidence this it the most reliable type of evidence available and therefore ideally the form it should take&#8221; I have another simultaneously recognizing-
&#8220;You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific&#8221;#756

And all the while it is Atheists and only Atheists who have introduced, changed, projected and insisted that &#8216;evidence&#8217; must mean &#8220;objective empirical evidence&#8221;/ &#8220;scientific evidence&#8221; .
Guys......this is bizarre!

"What a single person, and what the scientific community consider evidence is way way different. You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific". #756 RitalinOD


There, in the coloured quotes provided, is the &#8216;evidence&#8217; for 1/-

The evidence provided for 1/ is not &#8220;objective empirical evidence&#8221;/ &#8220;scientific evidence&#8221; but it remains good clear and tangible evidence none the less. Just like the evidence for the God proposition.

Now, in true subjective individual and tribal bias interpretive form, you may take the evidence provided for 1/ and ignore it, you may say it does not exist, you may say it does not count as it is not &#8220;objective&#8221;-&#8220; empirical&#8221;- &#8220;scientific&#8221;...but the reality is the >evidence< remains.
And, just as with the evidence for God, people get to see the evidence, consider the evidence and upon the evidence make a rational and logical conclusion that is not dependent upon a Lab Test.

 

[Orias]

Compilation post-
1/Proposition/assertion- There exists on this board a predisposition among Atheist contributors to take the single word ‘evidence’ and change, extrapolate, project and insist that word automatically and exclusively pertains to “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence”
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
ev·i·dence

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Here is the >evidence< of Proposition/assertion 1/. Please note, this evidence, though it exists and though it is clear, does not constitute or seek to represent “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence” but rather to demonstrate that not all evidence fits such criteria nor should be expected to...

Evidence of 1/-

“Hearsay is hardly evidence of God. And it is surely not objective empirical evidence.”#737

No claim was made that “Hearsay” constituted evidence of God, no reference to “objective empirical evidence” prior to this point.

“Sleight of hand? No, simply clarification.” #751 Tumbleweed41

No. You don’t get to change the statement I was responding to and call that “clarification” especially when you did not make the original statement.
Let’s look at the ‘evidence’...here is the original quote and my response-
“but there's no evidence to support a god,” Mellonhead #712
“Once more and yet again the ongoing confusion between "evidence" and 'proof'. Wombat #715
Now, since that point I have three atheists introducing, projecting and insisting “objective empirical” and “scientific” prior to ‘evidence’ >as if< that was a “clarification” and/or must be the criteria.
Guys...no...you don’t get to leap on the single word ‘evidence’ and own it as automatically and exclusively pertaining to science.
The ‘evidence’ available to and employed by an Historian is not the same as that employed/sought in a Lab.
Likewise in Law and Law enforcement there is a wide range of ‘evidence’ considered that is both objective and subjective- ‘motive, means and opportunity’ being three examples of ‘evidence’ available that do not fit the imposed criteria- “objective empirical/scientific”

“There is objective empirical evidence that cannot be reasonably denied.
And there is subjective evidence that is highly prone to each individuals interpretation.” #751


Yes, never said or suggested otherwise. Simply do not pretend that in daily life and a host of professional occupations- (Historians, police, juries, parents, lovers..) do not make a host of rational and logical assessments of available ‘evidence’ that are not- “objective empirical/ scientific”

"It is hardly a fallacy for someone to say there is no evidence for God. There isn't." #751


So (Ya’ll) keep saying...and as long as you change, lock down and tunnel vision the word/notion ‘evidence’ to automatically and exclusively mean “objective empirical/ scientific” you’re on a winner.
But that is >not< what 'evidence' means nor is that the exclusive domain of 'evidence' nor is that the manner, means and way in which people consider and employ 'evidence' every day.

"The fallacy is to lower the standards of evidence to subjectivity". #751
The fallacy is to pretend that reasonable rational subjective assessments of ‘evidence’ do not occur every day.
The punter in the Casino rolls cats eyes...the staff do not blink.
The punter rolls cats eyes again...”Unusual” think the staff
The punter rolls cats eyes three times in a row...that, in the subjective rule of thumb calculation of probability by the staff, is ‘evidence’ that something may be going on and further evidence sought.
But if you want to make - “objective empirical/ scientific evidence” God...then there is no evidence and no reason for the staff to be even suspicious.

“As for your comments about evidence while it was not explcitely stated in the original post that they were seeking scientific evidence this it the most reliable type of evidence available and therefore ideally the form it should take.” #755 ‘Oneatatime

“not explcitely stated”!!??...It was not stated or implied >at all<...the statement “in the original post” was broad, general and blanket- “there's no evidence to support a god”
While I have one Atheist insisting “scientific evidence this it the most reliable type of evidence available and therefore ideally the form it should take” I have another simultaneously recognizing-
“You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific”#756

And all the while it is Atheists and only Atheists who have introduced, changed, projected and insisted that ‘evidence’ must mean “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence” .
Guys......this is bizarre!

"What a single person, and what the scientific community consider evidence is way way different. You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific". #756 RitalinOD


There, in the coloured quotes provided, is the ‘evidence’ for 1/-

The evidence provided for 1/ is not “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence” but it remains good clear and tangible evidence none the less. Just like the evidence for the God proposition.

Now, in true subjective individual and tribal bias interpretive form, you may take the evidence provided for 1/ and ignore it, you may say it does not exist, you may say it does not count as it is not “objective”-“ empirical”- “scientific”...but the reality is the >evidence< remains.
And, just as with the evidence for God, people get to see the evidence, ***** the evidence and upon the evidence make a rational and logical conclusion that is not dependent upon a Lab Test.

To critisize your use of "evidence", not all people posses the same judgement, not all people take such happenings as an "indication". Which makes evidence completely subjected to one's perception.

But I would tend to agree that those who see with just their eyes, are easy to fool.

 

[Wombat]

You speak alot of some form of evidence. What evidence do you speak of? Provide an example of what you would consider evidence that a God exists.

If we could get past the straw man insistance, projection and fictitious assertion that the only evidence that could be/should be considered is “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence” then that is a conversation that could transpire.

One of several considerations of evidence would involve assesments of historical events in the context of 'probability'.

But like any trial or assesment of evidence that would take time and open minded willingness to investigate, explore and consider and refute the evidence.

Thus far there is no idication whatsoever of the latter existing, there is just the dogged blind eye insistance "there is no evidence"/all evidence must be “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence”

That strikes me as being as dogmatic certain and infexable as Fundamentalist theists...and equally futile discussing or arguing with.

 

[Orias]

If we could get past the straw man insistance, projection and fictitious assertion that the only evidence that could be/should be considered is “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence” then that is a conversation that could transpire.

One of several considerations of evidence would involve assesments of historical events in the context of 'probability'.

But like any trial or assesment of evidence that would take time and open minded willingness to investigate, explore and consider and refute the evidence.

Thus far there is no idication whatsoever of the latter existing, there is just the dogged blind eye insistance "there is no evidence"/all evidence must be “objective empirical evidence”/ “scientific evidence”

That strikes me as being as dogmatic certain and infexable as Fundamentalist theists...and equally futile discussing or arguing with.

:clap

 

[RitalinO.D.]

If we could get past the straw man insistance, projection and fictitious assertion that the only evidence that could be/should be considered is &#8220;objective empirical evidence&#8221;/ &#8220;scientific evidence&#8221; then that is a conversation that could transpire.

One of several considerations of evidence would involve assesments of historical events in the context of 'probability'.

But like any trial or assesment of evidence that would take time and open minded willingness to investigate, explore and consider and refute the evidence.

Thus far there is no idication whatsoever of the latter existing, there is just the dogged blind eye insistance "there is no evidence"/all evidence must be &#8220;objective empirical evidence&#8221;/ &#8220;scientific evidence&#8221;

That strikes me as being as dogmatic certain and infexable as Fundamentalist theists...and equally futile discussing or arguing with.

Yes, congratulations on demonstrating the different types of evidence.

IMO, in this instance, the only type of evidence that is relavent, I.E. going to convince anyone to the existence of God is the empirical type. Rarely will someone drop all their atheistic beliefs based on what one person thinks they've experienced. I will agree, that to them it is evidence, however, at the end of the day, that evidence only serves one person (Not counting the mindless lost souls that will latch on to anything for the sole purpose of belonging).

Argueing the semantics of what the term Evidence means is pretty moot. If evangelicals and sidewalk preachers had anything to point at that could convince the masses then chances are this debate forum would be empty.

 

[Orias]

Yes, congratulations on demonstrating the different types of evidence.

IMO, in this instance, the only type of evidence that is relavent, I.E. going to convince anyone to the existence of God is the empirical type. Rarely will someone drop all their atheistic beliefs based on what one person thinks they've experienced. I will agree, that to them it is evidence, however, at the end of the day, that evidence only serves one person (Not counting the mindless lost souls that will latch on to anything for the sole purpose of belonging).

Argueing the semantics of what the term Evidence means is pretty moot. If evangelicals and sidewalk preachers had anything to point at that could convince the masses then chances are this debate forum would be empty.

LOL

:clap

 

[Wombat]

To critisize your use of "evidence", not all people posses the same judgement, not all people take such happenings as an "indication"..

Orias
I am not presenting/arguing/proposing/suggesting that any subjective happenings experience or revelation is, in and of itself, an "indication" or evidence that others should believe.

But such happenings can and should be considered in the context of history, probability, what the experience reveals and what impact it has.

 

[Where Is God]

Is reality... reality? If not; God could exist.

 

[Orias]

[/color]

Orias
I am not presenting/arguing/proposing/suggesting that any subjective happenings experience or revelation is, in and of itself, an "indication" or evidence that others should believe.

I never said you did. You are merely asserting that people should consider, and I completely agree with you. I was just stating the obvious, obviously.

But such happenings can and should be considered in the context of history, probability, what the experience reveals and what impact it has.

It is hard to consider when there is so much dissent among the ranks of "theists".

But I understand what you mean. It's hard to observe all of the flavors in "theism" when atheism only benefits itself to it's favorite kind.

But you know, one evil comes, a million follow.

 

[Orias]

Is reality... reality? If not; God could exist.

What does reality have to do with anything?

 

[Where Is God]

Hi everyone, I just joined the forums. Just saying hi and I thought I would throw out something that has been picking my brain. If the Christian God ALWAYS existed before he created time, reality, and the universe, wouldn't it be impossible for him to get to the point where he creates reality if there was an INFINITE amount of time before he did?

 

[Where Is God]

What does reality have to do with anything?

Everything? If what we think we know is the actuality of existence, there is no god.

 

[Orias]

Hi everyone, I just joined the forums. Just saying hi and I thought I would throw out something that has been picking my brain. If the Christian God ALWAYS existed before he created time, reality, and the universe, wouldn't it be impossible for him to get to the point where he creates reality if there was an INFINITE amount of time before he did?

No, because he is infinite.

Nothing is impossible when you make the rules!:yes:

 

[Orias]

Everything? If what we think we know is the actuality of existence, there is no god.

This statement could very well be applied to the Opposition, and lacks an onus of justification.

Since we do know nothing.

 

[Where Is God]

This statement could very well be applied to the Opposition, and lacks an onus of justification.

Since we do know nothing.

How exactly do you define "know"?

 

[Where Is God]

No, because he is infinite.

Nothing is impossible when you make the rules!:yes:

I never said I made the rules, science and physics did.

 

[Wombat]

Yes, congratulations on demonstrating the different types of evidence. .

No problem...Question remains- Why should anyone have to bother/be obliged to do so? Athiests introduce and intitiate a semantic battle around the word/notion 'evidence' and like a dog with a bone won't let go then turn arround and accuse-
"Argueing the semantics of what the term Evidence means..."....!!!???

Hell...you guys introduce, insist and oblige "semantics of what the term Evidence means" then complain when someone is forced into "demonstrating the different types of evidence"!!!???

And now we go straight back to the insistance that "empirical evidence" is the "only type of evidence that is relavent"!!!???-

IMO, in this instance, the only type of evidence that is relavent, I.E. going to convince anyone to the existence of God is the empirical type..

Great...You are now locked into exactly the same position as the fundamentalist theist for whom the "the only type of evidence that is relavent" is the Word of God.

It's a closed shop.

Rarely will someone drop all their atheistic beliefs based on what one person thinks they've experienced. .

Good....Because I've never asked, expected, said or suggested they should.

Go back and look at the >evidence< of what I have said.

You (and others) are responding to and arguing against a false presumption.

For folk dedicated to logic, reason and critical thinking there is an awful lot of such baseless and presumptive projection and straw man obfuscation going on.