What is your single best argument for the existence of god(s)

[nonbeliever_92]

In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I only have my life. Other than that I am sure of very little. Our lives hang on by a string, and then it is over.
Now before that happens, we will hear of many things, one of which is God. The amount of information on God is overwhelming. So for the inquisitive mind, young and eager to accept whatever truth comes my way, I leave a place open for God. Why not?

The sooner you realize that NO ONE can show you God, the sooner you can decide for yourself whether God is real or not.

Now I also realize this is not the response you were looking for, I just thought it would save you a lot of time, to remind you that there is no evidence beyond personal feelings of people. IF this is the case, why even make a request as you have in the OP?

It is no different than me starting a thread titled "Show me the evidence for a ninety foot tall ant.

 

[Breathe]

Nobody can prove or disprove God. I see no point in attempting to prove or disprove God. There is a saying, "For those who believe in God, no evidence is needed. For those who don't believe, no evidence will suffice."

However, there is another little quote I know, which sums up my view on God and attempting to prove or disprove it.

"If you cannot see God in All, you cannot see God at all." - Yogi Bhajan.

'Nuff said. That's my two cents worth.

 

[ShakeZula]

For those who don't believe, no evidence will suffice.

Well that's just untrue, right there.

"If you cannot see God in All, you cannot see God at all." - Yogi Bhajan.

This is also nonsense.

Is this what passes for spirituality and depth in your world? If so, I have another quote for you.

Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial. - Friedrich Nietzsche

-S-

 

[fallingblood]

I agree with what others have said. There is no evidence for a god/s. The belief in God/s is one based strictly on faith. Those who say otherwise are simply lying to themselves.

 

[Breathe]

Well that's just untrue, right there.

Sure it is. To you maybe.

I've yet to see a person convinced of the existence of God based on any form of evidence.

This is also nonsense.

Once again, to you maybe. This is why I see no point in debating this issue. I have grown tired of it. I am curious as to how you would know if this quote is nonsense anyway. That is a mighty large claim to make.

Is this what passes for spirituality and depth in your world? If so, I have another quote for you.

No, they're quotes I like regarding this issue. You know nothing about "my world", so please do not even attempt to act like you do. Thanks in advance.

Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial. - Friedrich Nietzsche

To use your own words against your own quote: Well that's just untrue, right there.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Guppies rule the universe
Its in the bible

 

[ShakeZula]

Sure it is. To you maybe.

Did you or did you not make a blanket statement about all non-believers?

I've yet to see a person convinced of the existence of God based on any form of evidence.

So then what you're saying is you have evidence? You have managed to acquire what no theologian nor scientist has been able to scrounge up in all of human history? You have hard, testable and repeatable evidence?

My god man, you'll be more famous than Jesus if that's the case. Pray tell, what is this evidence! I must know!

Once again, to you maybe. This is why I see no point in debating this issue. I have grown tired of it. I am curious as to how you would know if this quote is nonsense anyway. That is a mighty large claim to make.

The theory that explains everything actually explains nothing, that's how. Saying 'everything is god' gets you know where in a discussion about evidence for a divine mover and shaker. I could just as easily say 'everything is bread crumbs' and be equally as right as you.

No, they're quotes I like regarding this issue. You know nothing about "my world", so please do not even attempt to act like you do. Thanks in advance.

I asked you if that's what passed for depth in your world, I did not tell you or assume. You're mighty testy, aren't you.

To use your own words against your own quote: Well that's just untrue, right there.

Well, let's examine that. Can you explain to me how a mystical (i.e. supernatural) explanations, which are based on no discernible logic, reason or evidence, can be deep? As I said before, god vs. bread crumbs. I can claim all sorts of things about the nature of the universe on no evidence and if challenged simply say 'it's my beliefs, I have a more spiritual view of the world that you're just too close-minded to understand, dude."

Now have I advanced the search for human understanding one iota by doing so?

Tell me, have you heard the 9 minute beat poem by Tim Minchin called 'Storm'? If not, I'd like to share it with you now.

[youtube]V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/youtube]
YouTube - Tim Minchin - Storm

-S-

 

[Breathe]

Did you or did you not make a blanket statement about all non-believers?

No. It's a well known phrase that means "You can't prove or disprove".

So then what you're saying is you have evidence? You have managed to acquire what no theologian nor scientist has been able to scrounge up in all of human history? You have hard, testable and repeatable evidence?

My god man, you'll be more famous than Jesus if that's the case. Pray tell, what is this evidence! I must know!

You are deliberately misquoting me. I have in no ways said this.

The theory that explains everything actually explains nothing, that's how. Saying 'everything is god' gets you know where in a discussion about evidence for a divine mover and shaker. I could just as easily say 'everything is bread crumbs' and be equally as right as you.

That's a very ignorant remark.

I asked you if that's what passed for depth in your world, I did not tell you or assume. You're mighty testy, aren't you.

Wrong: you did.

Tell me, have you heard the 9 minute beat poem by Tim Minchin called 'Storm'? If not, I'd like to share it with you now.

[youtube]V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/youtube]
YouTube - Tim Minchin - Storm

If you knew anything about me before mouthing off, you would know that I am hard of hearing.


Well done: you have become of the few members I hold no respect for. Please do not respond back to me. I have no interest in a discussion with you now due to the way you have acted.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

The fact that I am able to reply to this topic would qualify as pretty convincing evidence of my deities existence!

 

[ShakeZula]

If you knew anything about me before mouthing off, you would know that I am hard of hearing.

Yes, as a brand-spanking new member of this little corner of the interwebz, I should know all about you. :no:

However, if you had clicked the play button, you would have seen that that video contains the words. In fact it's not much of a video at all, since the whole thing is merely a transcript.

Well done: you have become of the few members I hold no respect for. Please do not respond back to me. I have no interest in a discussion with you now due to the way you have acted.

Taking your ball and going home, eh?

-S-

 

[YmirGF]

In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

Sadly, your question arrives at a time in my life when I no longer feel a need to concretize such meaningless concepts. As I have grown older, I am less inclined to add my voice to the distortions that have been given human animals over the ages. I know that I do sense something, on the periphery of my being, but I no longer feel a need to call it god. The truth is, I don't know exactly what it is, but there IS something there, as best as I can tell. I much prefer that others learn to sense what I can sense and perhaps together we can discern what is being perceived.

Suffice to say that the childish concepts given to human animals over the years simply have no basis in reality, though they may be the result of a trickle down effect of a sort, in a highly distorted manner. Likewise, there may be some truth to the idea that the gods of old are merely echoes of our own inner being that we have forgotten. What I am describing above is to be taken from the viewpoint of that inner being and not the superficial, anthropomorphic, somewhat arrogant ramblings, that we are so used to.

 

[Erebus]

In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

I've experienced them firsthand and so far, alternative explanations have been blown clean out of the water:

I've seen them, heard them, felt them and spoken to them. They have listened to my requests and intervened in my life. They've both helped me and hindered me in various ways.
I was once placed on antipsychotics as doctors had become concerned about my "hallucinations". The anti-psychotics did nothing. I had an MRI scan to see if there was something wrong with my brain. The results showed nothing abnormal. Nobody who I've performed a ritual with has failed to experience the deities and demons I speak with.
Simply put, the only reason I still question my beliefs is due to the constant pressure and prejudice of my family, doctors and other people who insist that my beliefs are nothing more than mental illness.

 

[ShakeZula]

Whether you reply or not, I want to clarify some things. You said:

For those who don't believe, no evidence will suffice

Now, it doesn't matter if this is a quote you pulled from somewhere, you still typed it out here and didn't cite an author. So, for all intents and purposes, you said it. It's a declarative, blanket statement regarding all non-believers. To which I said it wasn't true. You replied with the the non-committal answer of 'To you, maybe.'

Simply put it, is impossible for this statement to be true even if I am the only atheist in the whole world who could be persuaded by evidence that god exists. The reason this is so is because you made a declarative, blanket statement about all non-believers. You should not post such things that are obviously untrue if you don't want to be challenged on it. It's not my fault for calling attention to your dishonesty, it's your fault for posting dishonest things.

No. It's a well known phrase that means "You can't prove or disprove".

Well, as we can see, we're not talking about proving or disproving anything, we're talking about the dishonest way you portray all non-believers.

You are deliberately misquoting me. I have in no ways said this.

No, I'm not misquoting you. I quote you without any alteration to your words. What I'm doing is extrapolating out based on the statements you make. For instance, you said:

I've yet to see a person convinced of the existence of God based on any form of evidence.

Which implies that there is hard evidence out there. Because this statement by you suggests that there is. After all, you did use the phrase 'based on any form'. That would include testable, repeatable evidence. I asked if you had such evidence to provide. Because in my life, the only evidence i've ever been given is anecdotal accounts of easily explainable phenomena and appeals to emotion, ignorance or authority, all three of which are text book logical fallacies and hold no weight with a skeptical and rational individual.

Want to tell me again how or where I misquoted you?

That's a very ignorant remark.

I know it feels that way to you because you apparently think a lot of your spiritual beliefs, but unfortunately, when weighed with the claim 'everything is bread crumbs' they come out pretty much even. Why? Because we're making claims with no evidence.

If you don't have to provide evidence that 'everything is god' then I don't have to provide evidence that 'everything is bread crumbs,' do I. I could just as well call your remark ignorant because it contradicts with my deeply held belief in the bread crumb nature of the universe.

Do you see the kind of traps you fall in when you want to have a rational discussion yet none of your arguments are based on rationality?

Wrong: you did.

You're saying 'Wrong: you did' to my assertion that I asked you a question about 'your world' instead of making an assumption as you claimed I did. Let's examine this. I said:

Is this what passes for spirituality and depth in your world?

It's a bit late here in South Korea, but perhaps someone here can explain to me how this question regarding the nature of Odion's world counts as an assumption of his world.

Well done: you have become of the few members I hold no respect for. Please do not respond back to me. I have no interest in a discussion with you now due to the way you have acted.

Does this mean you won't give me any frubals? Damn.

The way I brain it, Odion, you have made some very dishonest comments that I called attention to and I questioned the assertions you made. Your response was to deny that you did any such thing and then throw a hissy fit and tell me you have no respect for me. I'm sure it won't come as a surprise to you that your respect for me does not influence my existence one way or another. You seem to have an extremely high opinion of yourself.

But none of that changes the fact that the problem here is not me or my slightly condescending tone, the problem is your shoddy debating skills and your tendency to play fast and loose with the facts.

Carry on.

-S-

 

[fallingblood]

So then what you're saying is you have evidence? You have managed to acquire what no theologian nor scientist has been able to scrounge up in all of human history? You have hard, testable and repeatable evidence?

A statement such as this, which has no evidence in what was said, and is simply something you created to have been said. A statement such as you made then reveals that you are not actually trying to logically argue anything, but instead simply are trying to advanced your belief. It is not a way to argue, but is instead a way to discredit yourself from the beginning.

It seems as if you are trying to argue something that simply is not there. The idea of something being deep was something you stated. It existed not before you brought it up as an argument. So if there is something you disagree with, why not actually deal with it, instead of making other things up?

 

[fallingblood]

Now, it doesn't matter if this is a quote you pulled from somewhere, you still typed it out here and didn't cite an author. So, for all intents and purposes, you said it. It's a declarative, blanket statement regarding all non-believers. To which I said it wasn't true. You replied with the the non-committal answer of 'To you, maybe.'

Simply put it, is impossible for this statement to be true even if I am the only atheist in the whole world who could be persuaded by evidence that god exists. The reason this is so is because you made a declarative, blanket statement about all non-believers. You should not post such things that are obviously untrue if you don't want to be challenged on it. It's not my fault for calling attention to your dishonesty, it's your fault for posting dishonest things.

The thing is though, there is no evidence. The only type of "evidence" that exists simply exists only in the minds of those who believe. However, again, that is not actual evidence.

One can not prove of disprove a deity, as there is no actual evidence either way. With that understanding, I believe the quote is quite right in this case. It was not dishonesty as you would like to claim.

Which implies that there is hard evidence out there. Because this statement by you suggests that there is. After all, you did use the phrase 'based on any form'. That would include testable, repeatable evidence. I asked if you had such evidence to provide. Because in my life, the only evidence i've ever been given is anecdotal accounts of easily explainable phenomena and appeals to emotion, ignorance or authority, all three of which are text book logical fallacies and hold no weight with a skeptical and rational individual.

It implies no such thing. Maybe if one were to take the statement out of context, and really try to add something, it could imply what you are saying. However, logically, one has to look at it in context, compared to what else was said. If one were to apply logic, it would state that they did not actually believe there was any evidence out there. You simply created a meaning that did not exist.

I believe in this case, you are one who is being dishonest. You can not claim some one is implying something when it is clear that they are not.

 

[Mister Emu]

Contact...

 

[Willamena]

In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

To answer the question you asked, "I am" (too fat).

Now, if you wanted to know about Deity, that's another matter.

 

[ellenjanuary]

In a very real (not to mention insane) sense Gwynnie is my god, and she is making movies around Nashville; in a very real sense, I have "stood before the creator of the universe;" but most of all, god has no need of existence, for existence is limited by non-existence...

Assuming, however, that I was a "standard functioning human being" and that such question had meaning that all could appreciate - I got one for ya, and it's a beaut:

Statement S is false.

That fricking Godel, takes a monumental logician to put the icing on the cake; complete the circle of mathematics, if not the system, then returning the art of number to its philosophical roots. There's always been a Liar's Paradox, two thousand years later Incompleteness is proven; but what has been overlooked?

Information. In that "false" tells us a "true" condition. Hey, logic can flirt with two thousand years of paradox, never was entirely logical anyhoo; but mathematics? That's important stuff! And what does information also tell us? There are no lies, there are only degrees of utility; and truth is merely a matter of density.

But that can't be right! We know what is true, and what is not; do we not? Why should we? We only know what provides utility, and we then must limit the scope of potential utility in order that it, well, is useful. Only, we just figured all that out now. If there is no true false, from whence the original lie?

 

[logician]

The only argument that has any merit for the existence of a supernatural entity, but one that I don't hold to, is there in no universal existence w/o consciouness, i.e. there must be a universal consciousness for existence.

Other than that, I know of no credible argument fo a supernatural entity.