Where Is God
Creator
Ooh, I like people asking this question, because the answer is in fact, YES!
[youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]
Link doesn't workz
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What evidence for God
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
Link doesn't workz
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Nope. Then again, no one can disprove evolution by using faulty analogies either. For future reference, using logical fallacies doesn't make your arguments logical.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Then work out why YouTube doesn't work.
Wombat
Active Member
Post 815 in which the Atheist respondent is ( yet again) introducing and arguing against evidence I have not advocated or suggested...in this case the YET age of the Earth argument-
The problem which I have with the evidence which is put foward in support of Gods existance is that the vast majority of it is untestable and that which is testable such as the age of the Earth has been shown to be false..Oneatatime
Given the prior pattern of like straw man arguments/evidence I have not raised/mentioned or advocated and yet am expected to respond to/defend (see- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2405501-post743.html
Six counts of Thank you for taking the time and consideration to refute an argument that I have not put forward )
...the ironic sarcasm was warranted...but not worthy of being the >only and exclusive< thing for you to pick up and run with.
Nelson saw no ships. It has a lot to do with which eye you put your telescope to and why
Wombat
Active Member
Originally Posted by Wombat
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
No. At various discreet and sequential points in history people have laid claim to having an experience of God, claiming God spoke/revealed a message to them.
No. You and every other responding Atheist has made the same presumptive/assumptive error in placing exclusive focus on people have laid claim to having an experience of God...and assuming Hearsay is being presented as evidence of God.
I repeat- No claim was made that Hearsay constituted evidence of God.
And this was emphasised in subsequent posts- #771 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.
(Not my problem if respondents cannot read what is actually said or bark up wrong tree on the basis of unwarranted assumptions)
My interest and argument always resided in the context of such claims- At various discreet and sequential points in history......and I have sought to explore those points in history with Atheists. But....History does not qualify as Objective empirical scientific evidence and therefore any discussion of such evidence is locked down shut off inadmissible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Sleight of hand? No, simply clarification. #751 Tumbleweed41
No. You dont get to change the statement I was responding to and call that clarification especially when you did not make the original statement.
Ah huh...A lot of things were being discussed long before you entered this thread...I wasnt responding to anything other than an explicit blanket false statement- There is no evidence for God.
To subsequently change that statement to There is no objective empirical scientific evidence for God is not clarification...it is just simply/clearly shifting the goal post to omit the entry of other evidence.
You are more than welcome to present >evidence< of my subjective speculations on God...substantiating- cite, quote, example >evidence<.
Atheists here have set the standards of evidence for the consideration of God at- irrefutable objective empirical scientific evidence.
Simultaneously Atheists concede and argue- You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific #756
An impossible and unreasonable standard of evidence is thereby set and the door of inquiry/investigation locked. This is reflected in a string of blanket statements of fundamentalist certainty- #740 There is no evidence (for God). Period....and none, other than proof, will be discussed or considered.
I maintain that evidence, reasonable logical and rational evidence based on an exploration of statistical probability, exists. Not evidence that is irrefutable objective empirical scientific proof...but sufficient evidence to conclude God is possible/probable/worthy of further ongoing open minded investigation.
If that, in your eyes, is to lower the standards of evidence....so be it.
An Atheist advocating that I should abandon my lower standards of reason, logic, calculation of probability as it shows a weakness of faith...???
LOL
How novel/ironic....thanks for that
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.
Yea...>Really<
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
No. At various discreet and sequential points in history people have laid claim to having an experience of God, claiming God spoke/revealed a message to them.
No. You and every other responding Atheist has made the same presumptive/assumptive error in placing exclusive focus on people have laid claim to having an experience of God...and assuming Hearsay is being presented as evidence of God.
I repeat- No claim was made that Hearsay constituted evidence of God.
And this was emphasised in subsequent posts- #771 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.
(Not my problem if respondents cannot read what is actually said or bark up wrong tree on the basis of unwarranted assumptions)
My interest and argument always resided in the context of such claims- At various discreet and sequential points in history......and I have sought to explore those points in history with Atheists. But....History does not qualify as Objective empirical scientific evidence and therefore any discussion of such evidence is locked down shut off inadmissible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Sleight of hand? No, simply clarification. #751 Tumbleweed41
No. You dont get to change the statement I was responding to and call that clarification especially when you did not make the original statement.
Ah huh...A lot of things were being discussed long before you entered this thread...I wasnt responding to anything other than an explicit blanket false statement- There is no evidence for God.
To subsequently change that statement to There is no objective empirical scientific evidence for God is not clarification...it is just simply/clearly shifting the goal post to omit the entry of other evidence.
You are more than welcome to present >evidence< of my subjective speculations on God...substantiating- cite, quote, example >evidence<.
Atheists here have set the standards of evidence for the consideration of God at- irrefutable objective empirical scientific evidence.
Simultaneously Atheists concede and argue- You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific #756
An impossible and unreasonable standard of evidence is thereby set and the door of inquiry/investigation locked. This is reflected in a string of blanket statements of fundamentalist certainty- #740 There is no evidence (for God). Period....and none, other than proof, will be discussed or considered.
I maintain that evidence, reasonable logical and rational evidence based on an exploration of statistical probability, exists. Not evidence that is irrefutable objective empirical scientific proof...but sufficient evidence to conclude God is possible/probable/worthy of further ongoing open minded investigation.
If that, in your eyes, is to lower the standards of evidence....so be it.
An Atheist advocating that I should abandon my lower standards of reason, logic, calculation of probability as it shows a weakness of faith...???
LOL
How novel/ironic....thanks for that
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Silly Wombat...
I'm not an Atheist.
I'm not an Atheist.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
An Atheist advocating that I should abandon my lower standards of reason, logic, calculation of probability as it shows a weakness of faith...???
LOL
How novel/ironic....thanks for that
Now, besides your speculative subjective "evidence", what objective empirical evidence is there for God?
Through your rantings about the "Atheists", you have yet to provide any such evidence.
Rather you have whined about "moving the goalposts", and charged that "statistical probability" exists for God.
What is that probability? Where are the statistics?
Where is your faith?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
As anyone can plainly see, the so called 'evidence' you speak of is based entirely on hearsay.
People have claimed to having an experience of God?
And this is what you base your evidence on?
This is what I meant by saying you have lowered the standards of evidence to fit into a preconceived belief.
I used to do this also. I accepted very low standards of evidence to support my beliefs as a Christian.
It wasn't until I realized the disservice this willful ignorance was doing to my personal integrity that I demanded more.
I can accept now that there is no real evidence of God, and still have faith.
That is honesty.
Wombat
Active Member
You have been invited to show example thereof and declined to do so-
Proir post-You are more than welcome to present >evidence< of my subjective speculations on God...substantiating- cite, quote, example >evidence<.
Have never required any, claimed any or suggested any.
Wombat
Active Member
As I pointed out (and you have steadfastly ignored) in my prior post your focus and assumption is exclusively,entirely and wrongly on- claimed to having an experience of God
I can only repeat in the hope that it might sink in-
From prior post-
.............
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.
My interest and argument always resided in the context of such claims- At various discreet and sequential points in history....
................
Perhaps you wish to argue that the discreet and sequential points in history are based entirely on hearsay? or that all history is based entirely on hearsay?....but either way you are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes, I understood you and sought to correct the baseless assumption that the claim itself to having an experience of God constituted evidence....and yet you persist- And this is what you base yourevidence on?
Once more....these claims occur within an historical context...there are unusual features if not outright anomalies in probability that give rise to suspicion that warrants further investigation.
See #870
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2407507-post870.html
if you wish to explore them...
but please dont keep insisting I am promoting hearsay of claimed experience as evidence when this is not the case.
That might explain then why you are presuming and projecting your old cosmology onto me.
Happy for you. Does willful ignorance include insisting another is saying one thing when they repeatedly point out they are not?
Good for you. That does not negate the possibility of real evidence of God unless and until some Modern Deist (my apologies) or Atheist can reasonably lay claim to having explored >every< possibility and therein attained all knowing wisdom.
That is your honest opinion and I accept it as such............I hold another.
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
Why would someone who is not satisfied with blind faith not set their standard for evidence at that level? People with faith do not need more evidence than what they already believe, as if you require more, that is going outside of "faith".
If a believer begins that quest for evidence outside of faith, then they are on their first steps to Atheism.
And those two quotes are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand, as Atheists, who require more than faith generally will not accept evidence that is not "Objective" "empirical" or "scientific".
That is not moving the goalposts, that is setting them at a greater distance than what is required by those with faith. Everyone has their idea of what they will/willnot accept as evidence. If someone continually changes their idea of that standard, then they are moving the posts. *Most* Atheists don't do that, considering no one has ever been able to provide any empirical evidence, and so that standard has not yet been met.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
While the above is true and correct...that is not to say there is no 'evidence' for God.
While Atheists (seemingly invariably) object- there is no objective empirical scientific evidence for God...that is not to conclude there is no rational, logical reasonable evidence for God or that aberations in statistical probability cannot and do not constitute evidence for God.
So then, present your evidence for God...
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
I would like to see that evidence. Could you provide it?
Wombat
Active Member
You mean aside from the fact that both positions represent an absurd and irrational polarized binary extremism?
No reason at all.
People with >blind< faith do not need more evidence than what they already believe...and that is irrational.
Frankly, Im surprised at this blatant- all or nothing/proof or blind faith binary cosmology...
As if there are not and cannot be millions who take position in the obvious middle ground- Atheists, Agnostics and Theist who see evidence of God but insufficient evidence to state God proven...some take the next step to faith/belief, others do not. But to pretend it is a choice between blind faith or set their standard for evidence at the level of irrefutable objective empirical scientific evidence is absurd.
Lost me there... a believer begins that quest for evidence outside of faith?...if they are outside of faith arent they a non believer?
I didnt say or suggest they are mutually exclusive...just that they establish a closed shop cosmology impervious to the rational consideration of other evidence.
Oh please, explain it to me one more time guys, as if I have not said I hear and understand your requirement a dozen+ times. Repeating it does not confer validity upon it.
Quote:
Anyone who tries to pretend the word/notion evidence means irrefutable objective empirical scientific evidence...is "moving the goalposts".
Oh for the luva.....No. That is moving the goal posts and this is covered ground-
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2406189-post765.html
There is all kinds and degrees of evidence... but irrefutable objective empirical scientific constitutes >proof<.
In science, law and life you can have evidence(Def-A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment) for a proposition and still have insufficient evidence to constitute-irrefutable objective empirical scientific evidence which is >proof<.
Yea...and some are rational/logical and some are irrational/illogical...to set the standard for consideration of evidence at- it must be proof is irrational/illogical.
Wombat
Active Member
You quote the invitation to explore the evidence as you simultaneously ignore the invitation-
Willing to explore them?
The offer has been on the table since #870
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...7-post870.html
and repeated in #875
Here...I'll make it even easier-
My first objective would be to establish some (broad) mutual agreement on what is random/chance and what degree of 'pattern' would prompt suspicion.
(Three simple scenario/questions should achieve this end)
Imagine you are a Track Steward at a racecourse. A ten race steeplechase event. A dozen+ horses in the first race.
All horses fall... bar one that completes the course.
On a scale of zero to ten, zero representing- probable/not suspicious...ten being improbable/highly suspicious...how would you rate your response to all horses bar one falling and failing to complete?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
How long have I been working there?
Wombat
Active Member
See #897.
With participation to establish broad mutually agreed parameters of probability sufficient evidence to conclude God is possible/probable/worthy of further ongoing open minded investigation can be provided.
Will it satisfy the expectations of those who require irrefutable objective empirical scientific proof prior to any such investigation? My calculation of probability is-probably not....none the less, a case can be made and evidence presented.
Wombat
Active Member
Require experience to make an assesment? Make it decades if you like. It's not important...a broad calculation of probability is all that is required.
