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

[ShakeZula]

You're right, there is no evidence for God

Wait... what? :thud:

But you said:

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

There is evidence or there isn't? I can't keep up with you waffling theists. You keep changing your mind. Could you please, for the sake of sanity, decide whether there is or isn't evidence for god? Whatever definition you use.

How can people be convinced with nothing? And if nothing is all it takes to convince you, how do you decide to believe or not believe in fairies and trolls? Since we're not relying on evidence, what mechanism do you employ to discern what fantastical thing to believe in or not? How were you convinced with nothing?

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

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

I got a little wrapped up with Odion last night, so I missed this.

Why is that evidence?

-S-

 

[arimoff]

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

Well I'm not trying to push my view on anybody and with out going in to details but for me Jew is the evidence of G-D.

 

[ellenjanuary]

There aren't any good arguments for traditional theism, so I'm not surprised.

Are there not "traditional theists?" I'm sure some of them are good.

ev·i·dence (

v

-d

ns)
n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
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.


Nope the definition stays the same, what's accepted as conclusive evidence is different.

There is no definition, because there is no thing "in and of itself;" a broken window is a broken window. It only becomes "evidence" by observation; and if there's kids around and nothing's been burgled, then it "becomes evidence of mischief." Thus, it would seem, the only compelling evidence for god would be god - if anything is a thing "in and of itself," that would be god.

Thusly, the "godly" are evidence for "god;" as god cannot be otherwise evidenced without us all becoming "godly," and having no evidence of lack over which to raise contention.

 

[ShakeZula]

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.

Let's play with this for a minute. Are you saying that, let's say, if there were no organisms on earth to perceive a rock, that the rock would not exist? And bear in mind, I don't mean the word 'rock', I mean what the word infers to us in our language; the collection of molecules that make up that which we call a rock. It sounds to me like the 'if a tree falls in the forest' question. As if the laws of nature are dependent upon our existence to function.

I would maintain that this is not true. I'm not saying you're claiming that such a thing is true, I'm just wanting to explore the idea a little bit.

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, Mary etc, again this is evidence.

Actually, there aren't. The gospels were written decades after the time of Christ and those were cobbled together in what amounts to nothing more than a really really long game of Chinese Whispers. There isn't a single Christian, Jewish or Pagan eye-witness account of Jesus anywhere.

-S-

 

[Erebus]

There is no definition, because there is no thing "in and of itself;" a broken window is a broken window. It only becomes "evidence" by observation; and if there's kids around and nothing's been burgled, then it "becomes evidence of mischief." Thus, it would seem, the only compelling evidence for god would be god - if anything is a thing "in and of itself," that would be god.

Thusly, the "godly" are evidence for "god;" as god cannot be otherwise evidenced without us all becoming "godly," and having no evidence of lack over which to raise contention.

I agree with the part I highlighted, however evidence does not need to be the thing itself, evidence can be a result of the thing. Animal droppings are a good (and delightfully blasphemous) example.

Actually, there aren't. The gospels were written decades after the time of Christ and those were cobbled together in what amounts to nothing more than a really really long game of Chinese Whispers. There isn't a single Christian, Jewish or Pagan eye-witness account of Jesus anywhere.

You sure about that?

Jesus in the sky

Jesus on a fishstick

Plenty of eyewitness accounts, plenty of evidence, all of it rubbish evidence.

There is plenty of evidence across the world for all manner of gods and devils, the fact is though, evidence is not always conclusive and as you can see from the pictures above, it's not always even good. When talking about the Abrahamic God, it's perfectly reasonable to say there is no solid/conclusive/convincing/non-stupid evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS plenty of evidence going strictly by definition of the word.

 

[ShakeZula]

You sure about that?

I could show you a picture of the Virgin Marry in a condom, but I suspect that, while the condom has not been used, that it would get me banned or reprimanded in some less-severe way. However, if you're more familiar with the posting rules, if it's acceptable let me know. I'll post it forthwith. It's very... interesting. :angel2:

Plenty of eyewitness accounts, plenty of evidence, all of it rubbish evidence.

When I said eyewitness accounts I meant from the time Jebus supposedly lived. The authors of the NT were not around to see Jesus and, in all likelihood, were greek scholars of some sort who had never even been to Jerusalem.

There is plenty of evidence across the world for all manner of gods and devils, the fact is though, evidence is not always conclusive and as you can see from the pictures above, it's not always even good. When talking about the Abrahamic God, it's perfectly reasonable to say there is no solid/conclusive/convincing/non-stupid evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS plenty of evidence going strictly by definition of the word.

True, but in this sort of discussion, such semantic games–while fun–only muddy the waters. I think it's pretty clear what kind of evidence the OP was looking for, but then again, I could be mistaken. So far in this thread there have been two people who don't understand the difference between a statement and a question.

But, just to be clear going forward, when I use the word 'evidence', I am referring to something testable and repeatable. That which can withstand analysis via the scientific method. A 'feeling' for instance, does not count as evidence under this definition since if a feeling proves it then my lack of feeling would prove it's nonexistence.

-S-

 

[Erebus]

1.I could show you a picture of the Virgin Marry in a condom, but I suspect that, while the condom has not been used, that it would get me banned or reprimanded in some less-severe way. However, if you're more familiar with the posting rules, if it's acceptable let me know. I'll post it forthwith. It's very... interesting. :angel2:



2.When I said eyewitness accounts I meant from the time Jebus supposedly lived. The authors of the NT were not around to see Jesus and, in all likelihood, were greek scholars of some sort who had never even been to Jerusalem.



3.True, but in this sort of discussion, such semantic games–while fun–only muddy the waters. I think it's pretty clear what kind of evidence the OP was looking for, but then again, I could be mistaken. So far in this thread there have been two people who don't understand the difference between a statement and a question.

4.But, just to be clear going forward, when I use the word 'evidence', I am referring to something testable and repeatable. That which can withstand analysis via the scientific method. A 'feeling' for instance, does not count as evidence under this definition since if a feeling proves it then my lack of feeling would prove it's nonexistence.

-S-

1. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules yes

2. fair enough and yes I agree with you there.

3. Yes they are fun and yes they can muddy the waters. At the same time though, it can be helpful in broadening people's viewpoints.

4. What was it Odion said about insufficient evidence? If a deity was measurable, testable etc, would it be considered a deity anymore? This attitude to evidence means that nothing supernatural will ever be discovered, simply because it will no longer be considered supernatural.
I guess you don't believe in magic? Yet I'm pretty sure you believe in the Placebo/Nocebo effect. The approach to evidence that you describe tends not to disprove the supernatural, merely rename it.

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

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

Well that's a huge generalisation, there are plenty of things that could prove it to me.

 

[Breathe]

Well that's a huge generalisation, there are plenty of things that could prove it to me.

Looks like the well known saying goes right over a lot more people's heads than I realized.

 

[sonofskeptish]

ev·i·dence (

v

-d

ns)
n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
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.


Nope the definition stays the same, what's accepted as conclusive evidence is different.

A turd beside a fire hydrant is not evidence that Joe Pesci took a dump... it's evidence that an animal, likely a dog, took a dump. I maintain that for someone with a natural (vs. supernatural) worldview, there is not a single piece of evidence supporting the existance of god(s)... all there can be for a rational person is belief and faith that he/she/it/they exist.

But to clarify for supernaturally-minded individuals, you are correct, perhaps in future discussions I'll precede the word "evidence" with the word "scientific"...

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I'm doubtful that will help... as things like holy books and conciousness will continue to be presented as "evidence"... it's all they have.

 

[Erebus]

A turd beside a fire hydrant is not evidence that Joe Pesci took a dump... it's evidence that an animal, likely a dog, took a dump. I maintain that for someone with a natural (vs. supernatural) worldview, there is not a single piece of evidence supporting the existance of god(s)... all there can be for a rational person is belief and faith that he/she/it/they exist.

But to clarify for supernaturally-minded individuals, you are correct, perhaps in future discussions I'll precede the word "evidence" with the word "scientific"...

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I'm doubtful that will help... as things like holy books and conciousness will continue to be presented as "evidence"... it's all they have.

Hell I wouldn't expect you to be convinced by any evidence that the Bible is true, I'm not myself. However I always find it amusing when people swear by scientific method in order to determine what is or isn't worthy of belief. Especially considering some of the restrictions placed on theists trying to present their arguments (though I will admit, an awful lot of theistic arguments are pretty stupid).
Bear in mind that most theists are accused of having only faith that their deities exist and that the following amount to nothing:

Religious texts/articles
Religious leaders/experts
Accounts from other people/popular opinion (they could be lying after all and the fact that something is popular doesn't make it correct)
photographic and video evidence (too easy to manipulate images, could be faked etc)
Personal experiences

Now honestly, do you see any problem with those restrictions?

 

[ShakeZula]

Looks like the well known saying goes right over a lot more people's heads than I realized.

I think you just need to get some better quotes.

-S-

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Did you call the Placebo effect magic shyanekh?

 

[Erebus]

Did you call the Placebo effect magic shyanekh?

I've always believed that to be good at magic you need to also be good at psychology. The line between psychology and supernatural is indredibly thin at times, so yes I would consider the placebo effect to be a form of magic.
What would ancient cultures have called the ability to heal or harm somebody with clever use of words and ritual? Like I said, science has a tendency to simply rename anything which was once considered supernatural once it becomes better understood.

*edit* I assume you don't believe in magic? Out of interest, would your reason for not believing in it be lack of evidence?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Will to power is the best argument against God.

I would think that the best argument for God would be something like will to power.

Will to power in its simplest form is this: human nature itself negates the existence of God, and this nature is explained by mystical experience of the self.

So for the existence of God is not external proofs but existential awareness and experience.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I've always believed that to be good at magic you need to also be good at psychology. The line between psychology and supernatural is indredibly thin at times, so yes I would consider the placebo effect to be a form of magic.
What would ancient cultures have called the ability to heal or harm somebody with clever use of words and ritual? Like I said, science has a tendency to simply rename anything which was once considered supernatural once it becomes better understood.

*edit* I assume you don't believe in magic? Out of interest, would your reason for not believing in it be lack of evidence?

But the thing is the placebo effect isn't supernatural. Perhaps the "spells" of ancient times appeared to have effectively worked at healing people through the placebo effect on part of the injured party,this would actually be an interesting thing to study....
Anyway, often times things once considered supernatural are discovered to actually be natural occurences, so what? What's your point, it happens relatively all the time. With Jove and his lightning bolts for instances, we now know that it's just electricity within the atmoshpere. This should give credence for believeing in natural things rather than supernatural things, not the other way around. The line between the natural and supernatural is actually the line between what is known and what isn't known( or what is believed).

And no I don't believe in magic, a force which defies natural law, and it is greatly out of the lack of magic there is.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Will to power is the best argument against God.

I would think that the best argument for God would be something like will to power.

Will to power in its simplest form is this: human nature itself negates the existence of God, and this nature is explained by mystical experience of the self.

So for the existence of God is not external proofs but existential awareness and experience.

what?

 

[Erebus]

But the thing is the placebo effect isn't supernatural. Perhaps the "spells" of ancient times appeared to have effectively worked at healing people through the placebo effect on part of the injured party,this would actually be an interesting thing to study....
Anyway, often times things once considered supernatural are discovered to actually be natural occurences, so what? What's your point, it happens relatively all the time. With Jove and his lightning bolts for instances, we now know that it's just electricity within the atmoshpere. This should give credence for believeing in natural things rather than supernatural things, not the other way around. The line between the natural and supernatural is actually the line between what is known and what isn't known( or what is believed).

And no I don't believe in magic, a force which defies natural law, and it is greatly out of the lack of magic there is.

So to qualify as magical something has to first be impossible? No wonder you haven't seen evidence then. Odion's quote about no evidence being sufficient springs to mind once again.

You want some element of magic that is quantitative, repeatable and testable? Consider the following:

Mind Control/Glamour - Hypnosis
Curses/Blessings - Nocebo/Placebo
Berserker Magic - Adrenaline rush


Now considering you have here some well known ways in which ancient magic could be made to work, you would think scientists would be overjoyed that not only have they proven magic to exist, they actually know how to employ it for themselves! Instead, what was once called magic is renamed and the method used to cast a spell no longer "counts" as evidence. Rather than measuring the means by which magic can be performed, advocates of scientific method have decided they have disproved magic.
Granted, some things ARE disproved by science, such as a god throwing lightning bolts. With magic however, scientists have exactly what they always demanded, hard, testable evidence.