What verifiable evidence is there that god exists?

[WalterTrull]

People are a result. That is all. People have to distort evolution to try to claim that they are a goal.

Ah well. Different views of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah well. Different views of life.

It seems that way. But you have shown that you cannot defend the claim of:

"I find the generally accepted explanation for our living, absurd. I find a heavenly (mental) cause and continuous support much more rational."

Well you may find it that way, but that is only due to a misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[WalterTrull]

It seems that way. But you have shown that you cannot defend the claim of:

"I find the generally accepted explanation for our living, absurd. I find a heavenly (mental) cause and continuous support much more rational."

Well you may find it that way, but that is only due to a misunderstanding of evolution.

mmmm...

 

[Trailblazer]

Humanity has a RIGHT to know if god exists, it there are penalties for non belief.

They need to search for God if they want to know.

 

[Trailblazer]

I just can't see how believers can justify a God that plays Hide and Go Seek.

God is not hiding. We can find Him if we seek Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is not hiding. We can find Him if we seek Him.

Then why do so many that look for him never find him? Either he plays Hide and Go Seek or he does not exist at all.

 

[JJ50]

Then why do so many that look for him never find him? Either he plays Hide and Go Seek or he does not exist at all.

That would appear to be the case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To me, it would be impossible because a godless universe would allow for No morals.
No morals would mean the stronger wicked could and would overpower the rest.

Why would a godless universe = no morals?

And do we not see the "stronger wicked" overpowering the rest in the world we currently live in, the world where you assert that a god does exist?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My feeling is that evolution is a misunderstanding of life. People don't seem the goal of evolution, they are the cause. Well, the cause of the misunderstanding.

*sigh*

Clearly, you do not comprehend what the theory of evolution actually is-- nor do you understand that evolution is a fact. There is also a theory by the same name, that tries very well to explain the fact of evolution.

 

[WalterTrull]

*sigh*

Clearly, you do not comprehend what the theory of evolution actually is-- nor do you understand that evolution is a fact. There is also a theory by the same name, that tries very well to explain the fact of evolution.

*Sigh*
Clearly you don't understand the mental nature of the universe. Hmmm... there might be a sort of mental evolution. That's actually interesting. I'll ponder.

Some fun huh?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why do so many that look for him never find him?

A better question might be: Why do so many people look for Him and find him?
Maybe the people who don't find Him can learn from those who do.

Either he plays Hide and Go Seek or he does not exist at all.

In a sense He does play that, but sometimes those that seek find what they were seeking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A better question might be: Why do so many people look for Him and find him?

But they don't. What happens are that people find conflicting versions of a god. Only one version can be correct.

Maybe the people who don't find Him can learn from those who do.

It is probably the other way around.

In a sense He does play that, but sometimes those that seek find what they were seeking.

Yes, comfort in a human construction. That is not very comforting to a rational thinker.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

*Sigh*
Clearly you don't understand the mental nature of the universe. Hmmm... there might be a sort of mental evolution. That's actually interesting. I'll ponder.

Some fun huh?

Citation Needed.

Me? I have 1000's of human-hours worth of evidence, fact, experiments, and findings, that back what I said before. Evolution is literally one of the most evidence-backed finding in science.

More than gravity.

More than light.

More than orbital dynamics.

What do *you* have? Faith?

 

[WalterTrull]

Citation Needed.

Me? I have 1000's of human-hours worth of evidence, fact, experiments, and findings, that back what I said before. Evolution is literally one of the most evidence-backed finding in science.

More than gravity.

More than light.

More than orbital dynamics.

What do *you* have? Faith?

I just have a different set of pretty pictures.
I like mine better that yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just have a different set of pretty pictures.
I like mine better that yours.

Ideas that people have tested and tried to refute tend to be more reliable than pretty pictures.

Some of the prettiest drawings that you will see are of perpetual motion machines. But they do not work. The science that tells us that they do not work is continually tested.

The problem with beliefs of creationists and the like is that they are afraid to properly test their ideas because they are afraid that they are wrong. Real scientists try to the out if their ideas are wrong because they know from experience that finding out how one is wrong can lead to the correct answer.

 

[WalterTrull]

I guess I should have said that I like my interpretation of the pictures better than your interpretation. Same pictures, different interpretations. Here’s a bit of mine.

Ideas that people have tested and tried to refute tend to be more reliable than pretty pictures.

I totally agree.

An objective reality seems a necessary concept. (silly statement I guess, why have it if unnecessary). It does help us build our machines. For now, our images won’t stay put at all without it. We see them as objects and they stay put. Cool.

We often change our images by testing ideas until something sticks. Test, think, add, test again. Soon we’ve built a reasonably solid image or changed image, an object. By constantly testing, we have also built a reasonably solid thought machine to build/change other images. More coolness.

At some point we step back and say: “Wait a minute. How could that possibly really work?”

Hopefully we’ll get a bunch of “real scientists” asking that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess I should have said that I like my interpretation of the pictures better than your interpretation. Same pictures, different interpretations. Here’s a bit of mine.



I totally agree.

An objective reality seems a necessary concept. (silly statement I guess, why have it if unnecessary). It does help us build our machines. For now, our images won’t stay put at all without it. We see them as objects and they stay put. Cool.

We often change our images by testing ideas until something sticks. Test, think, add, test again. Soon we’ve built a reasonably solid image or changed image, an object. By constantly testing, we have also built a reasonably solid thought machine to build/change other images. More coolness.

At some point we step back and say: “Wait a minute. How could that possibly really work?”

Hopefully we’ll get a bunch of “real scientists” asking that.

And constant observation, research, and experiment is how we know that life is the product of evolution. How would we test the existence of a god?

 

[WalterTrull]

And constant observation, research, and experiment is how we know that life is the product of evolution. How would we test the existence of a god?

Experiment on evolution? Don’t think I know about that. Lots and lots of observation, true. I kind of lump research in with observation. We observe and make assumptions. How is it that we can observe and make assumptions?

Test for God? Back to my original assertion. You and me. No other way we can be.
No God, no us. I suppose that would be a test. Don't like it much, luckily sort of impossible.

 

[oldbadger]

That would appear to be the case.

How on Earth could you have missed the fact that all is God? It's all around you.
Whatever caused (or is the reason for) the existence of everything...... why can't this be called 'God'?

You can call it the Reason..... I just see it as God.
But either way it cannot be denied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Experiment on evolution? Don’t think I know about that. Lots and lots of observation, true. I kind of lump research in with observation. We observe and make assumptions. How is it that we can observe and make assumptions?

Test for God? Back to my original assertion. You and me. No other way we can be.
No God, no us. I suppose that would be a test. Don't like it much, luckily sort of impossible.

Really? Every new fossil find qualifies as an experiment and test on evolution. The investigation of DNA of different species that shows how they are related also qualifies. Any test that could falsify evolution qualifies as an experiment. Experiments are not limited to the cookbook chemistry one does in high school or even as an undergraduate.