The burden of proof is on the theist who asserts the premise. Yes, I will always be skeptical about the evidence provided, but this is an honest position. If God rearranges the stars in the sky to spell my name, it's still far more likely that I'm hallucinating than that God did that. It's a high bar, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist. But God would presumably know what evidence would convince me.
We went over this. That is not your simple and complete definition of God. Because scientists and atheists also believe that all there is exists.
How can you refute any reasonable evidence for God if you don't know what would be evidence of God? You could argue against everything that is put to you, on the basis of it not being acceptable to you. Firstly, this isn't a thread about proof for God existence. It is a thread on faith. So as theists we don't have to go down that route. God exists, and we believe He/It exists, and we can exercise faith in God. You being without God, require evidence of God, before, acceptance, belief, or faith even enter into the discussion. This thread will not get off the ground becauset he issue will always return to where is the evidence of Gods existence. In fact you will never really be able to ever have a discussion about God, unless it is about physical evidence of something you couldn't recognize, from an atheist perspective, if kicked you in the ass. You ask because there is nothing here for you, other than to argue about a subject you know very little about. Tell me. How do you think God becomes recognizable through empirical evidence? Jan.
I see no novelty in posts now, it has become kind of circular...same arguments with different wordings...
How can one assert that "God is all there is" and then claim that that is stated "without accepting God exists or not"? Surely without accepting God or not the best you could say is "if God exists then God is all there is."? As soon as you say that God is all there is then you are asserting that God exists. That's nice. I didn't ask about your belief in God but rather the question was about evidence. Let me repeat it for you: do you believe in God because you see evidence of God, or do you see evidence of God because you believe in God.
I'm asserting the meaning of Theos and ATheos. There is God, and there are those without God. Evidence of God is what you need to comprehend God, despite not knowing what is to be produced as evidence of God. I don't think you need God, to know what evidence would convince you. That you require evidence, is enough. Jan.
I don't have an issue with existence. You do. Either God is, or God doesn't exist. Right? If you think it is possible that God existsi n the way we exist, then we're not discussing God. What's nice about it? I explained why your terminology is irrelevant. If I believed in God because of something like physical evidence, I wouldn't be believing in God, I'd believe because I think the evidence is correct. I could just as easily retract my belief because of another evidence. That is basically your position. You claim to want evidence of God, bit will never know if God exists or not. Jan.
Quit complaining, roll you sleeves up and get involved. I quite sure you disagree with my tactic, based on earlier posts. Why don't you explain where you think I'm going wrong for starters. Jan.
You are not going wrong. As a prime contributor you have not been able to elevate the level of this thread. It has not yet crossed the mundane argument of objectivity by atheists.
Because to atheists it is not reasonable evidence of God. It is reasonable evidence of something else but not something they can reasonably assert is of God. Remember, they start from the hypothesis that something doesn't exist unless there is reasonable (to them) evidence to suggest that it does. If you simply assert that God is equivalent to "everything there is", for example, then it is trivially true that everything is evidence of God, but it explains nothing and the equation is of no value. It is only of value when it can explain that which is not otherwise explainable. Indeed. And who are you to tell them that they are incorrect, yet are unable to demonstrate that to them? Who are you to say that what they find reasonable or not is wrong? Are you suggesting that God is an objective issue rather than wholly subjective? So in the spirit of honest discussion you are evading? You raised the question of Googling for evidence in post #621, and I am just following up on it, asking you to be honest in your discussions. So I ask again: you have suggested that one Googles for evidence, and I am asking you to provide one example so that we can examine it for the purposes of demonstrating our respective sides of this debate. And yes, this is a thread about faith, and the issue of evidence is at the heart of it, at least for those that don't have such faith. So it is a legitimate area for continued discussion. Now, in the spirit of honest discussion, are you going to provide an example of what you consider to be reasonable evidence for the existence of God? And yet in post #621 you asserted that we atheists don't know what evidence of God even is, that theists do and have explained it before, and that we should just Gogle for it. I am asking you to provide one example, please. For further examination so that we can discuss our views around why what you present is either considered reasonable or unreasonable evidence for God. I await the impetus and will judge my ability to recognise it when it occurs. You asked for honest discussion, Jan, and others here even thought you capable of it. Yet you are dismissing atheists out of hand as being incapable of holding any discussion on the issue because you say they don't recognise God. That is not honest, Jan. You set them tasks to do which you think will answer your points yet refuse to demonstrate the same, or discuss with them why they don't agree with you. That is not honest, Jan. I don't know and suspect that He doesn't. But if he ever does become recognisable to me through such, I'll be sure to let you know.
I did put a smiley after the first line of my post, but I now know that smileys don'tw or from my phone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unfortunately once God is the topic at hand, it never goes beyond 'there is no evidence of Gods existence'. Jan.
Wrong. Faith is the evidence of phenomena of first hand observation. Would you be skeptical in life, basically useful only in hell or for tragedy, and pain but an illusion to Heaven and hell, neither are sinful but they're also the worst things ever.
Its in your hand, post something about the splendor of God as defined in the scripture and do not defend. God is formless and yet it is formful. Let them struggle to decipher. Please note that it is impossible for an objective thinker on this matter to accept the concept of God, its beyond their comprehension. You do not analyze the God, you do not assess the God, You do not objectify the God, you do not rationalize the God. You do not question the God....... It is an absolute unquestioned faith in God. Period. No discussion. Only unquestionung theists should talk about God and his magnificence, not atheists. Its not for them. I am not inclined to expose my faith to them. I do not ask them why they love their mother.
If God is all there is, then is simple pantheism and - of course God exists - by definition. Thank you, Captain Obvious. But calling the universe "God" doesn't really answer any questions. And most people attach a lot more baggage to the word "God" than they attach to the universe.
Knowledge, faith, and non-transgression are absolutes. Understanding, and respect. Once thought the fallen but now we know all things do not include sorrow or a reaper. Prove your faith, refine fire in science and create certainty and light? Faith in the foretense can be used to find contentment, and perfection. Faith in life creates hope from its rib. Its useful as a conjuncture. Air created fire, and water and they created earth and the heavens.
What is it about God, that makes you firm in the belief that what is presented as evidence, isn't reasonable evidence? What do you regard as reasonable evidence? "God is all there is", is not the same as saying "God is everything". That is, at best, a misconception or mis-understanding. As far as value goes, it is of value to some, I think you're being quite arrogant in you dismissal of it. I accept that you could possibly be correct from your perception. I just think your perception of God is what you think it should be, as opposed to what God is, and what God means to theists. I am suggesting that God is. And theists accept this, and believe in Him/It, as opposed to not. Evading what? It seems you can't accept that theists should consider their faith in God, because as far as you're concerned, God has yet to be proven, And all theists who believe in God, ultimately believe in nothing unless it can be proven by atheists standard. Can you see how absurd that is? If you're following up, then you've no need to ask me. I'm not interested in arguing for evidence of Gods existence, in a thread about faith. To me, God is, I accept that, and I have come to believe in Him. As it is the opposite with you, I'm not sure what your purpose is, on this thread. No. Faith in God does not have, at it's core, the issue of the evidence of Gods existence. Another indicator of your lack of fund of knowledge regarding God. If you don't accept God, that's fine with me. Give me a shout when it does. Do atheists recognise God? Would I be really out of order if concluded 'No'? You have one main reason why you don't agree with me... ALTOGETHER NOW... 'there is no physical evidence of God'. What else do you have? You know where to find me. Jan.
That's what you think it is. How arrogant you are that you believe your perception "is all there is". When have I ever called the universe, God? Stop paraphrasing. It's tedious. Jan.
In his own way, sure. That is to say, he may be perpetually wrong, but more often than not he seems genuine and sincere in his limitations. This is a striking contrast compared to some of the people he complains about, who are clearly insincere. At the end of the day, it's true, I don't like the religion Jan's character preaches. But it's also true that at the end of the day, I simply don't like the characters some of these would-be atheistic jokers play. In truth, I consider some of them agents provocateur trying to discredit atheism. Seriously, what kind of rationalist turns around and so openly and ferociously promotes irrationality? If Jan, for instance, is delusional, then this or that other member over here, for instance, is a cheap fucking swindler. It's possible Jan's also a swindler, but that doesn't change a damn thing about anyone else. And, truth told, if Jan was a swindler, he ought to be better at it after this many years of practice. He might be wrong, but he honestly believes the shit he's pushing. And that does count for something. My father's ultimate condemnation, for instance, was that he wouldn't allow someone around his children. In Jan's case, I just don't like the dumb-assed religion, but you should hear my kid's maternal grandfather, who is a purity sadist. Jan would have to be show some serious danger before I get to the point that I would prohibit his access to children under my care; besides, I can always explain to the kids, later, that this is what religion does to a person. There are others in this thread, who happen to be atheists, that I would not allow anywhere near children; they're just dangerously unethical people
It's not what there is about God but rather what there is about the evidence. Present some that you think is reasonable evidence and we can discuss, from which you may glean why I consider it unreasonable, if indeed I do. Evidence that, with no a priori assumption of God's existence, can only be attributed to God and not to any theory that does not require God. Apologies, I am not referring to "everything" as you do, I.e. as in "every thing" but as in "all that there is". Of course some people find value in it. I do not speak for them. I speak for myself. I see no value in it, at least at present, as it pertains to me. But please explain to me why it is arrogant to dismiss something as subjectively valueless, while still appreciating that it may hold value for others? I admire your conviction in what you believe, but why should I believe that you know what God actually is any more than I do? Or know that God even exists any more than I know? Because you believe? Because you share the same view of God as others? All you have in this regard is your belief that you are correct. So what is it that gives you this faith, this belief, that I clearly lack? Why is it that when you look at something you can say, quite reasonably I'm sure from your perspective, that this is evidence of God? No, it's not because of the definition of God. What is it? Why? The request, Jan, that you continue to evade. I see the absurdity of me believing in something for which I see no evidence, yes. Can you? As stated previously, you raised the issue, and am asking you to provide any piece of evidence that you consider to be evidence of God, so that we can discuss the difference in approach. Can you not see how important the issue of evidence is to (most) atheists regarding the issue of faith? Your comments seem to stress how important we find it yet you can't seem to bring yourself to discuss it when asked? You recognise its significance yet dismiss atheists for it rather than wishing to discuss it. Why is that? Could it possibly be to understand why people have faith in that which I do not? It does to atheists, as that is what they can not get past in order to have faith. So if not a question of evidence for you, what is it? Why do you have faith in that which you claim there to be evidence for but are unwilling to provide an example for discussion, and when you say evidence is not a core issue? So you believe, I'm sure. So this is you discussing with atheists is it? It's not about whether you are fine with it or not, or me being fine or not with you believing. It is about discussing, Jan, trying to understand differences, differences which you simply don't seem prepared to discuss. With you it is simply: "I know God, you don't believe therefore don't know God, therefore end of discussion". Honest discussion, my ass! Of course. Can you show me that there's anything to recognise? Would I really be out of order if I concluded 'No'? But as said, if God comes a-kickin' I'm sure I'd recognise it. I'm not here to agree with you. I'm here to discuss the reasons we differ. You may think that it is simply a case of 'no physical evidence of God' yet previously you said that we could find examples of evidence of God simply by Googling. Yet you are unwilling to discuss. I'll await some honest discussion from you, first.
