Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[F1fan]

First you have to explain your epistemology and what you mean by your word "evidence". Everyone is different.

Are you confused by the word "evidence". Look it up, use the most common meaning like the rest of us. But I recognize your tactic here, trying to muddy the definitions of words so you can evade trying to prove your God exists.

You are discussing a metaphysical subject.

Metaphysics is a bogus subject. You don't take it seriously, do you?

So you should understand that you define your grounds. This is not a scientific theory like relativity. So if your type of discussion and demand is like a chemistry experiment where someone puts p2o5, heats it and rids of o. It has to be a philosophical discussion and the proof provided will be based on deduction.

So go ahead and define your epistemology first, and yes, I will engage.

My approach is the rules of logic. It's that simple. Can you use logic and demonstrate your God exists outside of human imagination?

 

[F1fan]

Interesting twist this conversation has taken. Why are we talking about fear? The original observation, by @loverofhumanity , was more in the nature of wonder at the glory of the material world; and the spirituality implicit in that response, to which @Subduction Zone was resistant.

Both fear and wonder are intense responses to stimuli, of course.

Anyway my point was not that different people interpret evidence differently, to solve some sort of mystery. It was that two people can observe the same phenomenon - a sunset, say - but one sees the mundane and the other the miraculous.

It's all the same thing, our minds filter what we sense and experience through our attitudes and assumptions. Skilled thinkers learn to set aside the attitudes and assumptions that distort and color what we see and experience.

 

[F1fan]

It seems logical to me that everything is proof of God's existence (based on the concept of God literally being everything).

.......

(If you read such things as "I AM THAT AM", most high, Alpha and Omega, first and last,...was, is and is to come, etc., in that light it makes perfect sense.)

This is an excellent example of how you can't force a God into existence with words.

Notice your first sentence was to just assert that God is everything. That's not a factual statement. So it doesn't make sense.

 

[McBell]

That was not your post I responded to. And I dont have any intentions of convincing you or anyone else. Zilch. Maybe you do and you think others are the same as you trying to convince people.

If you have a good argument present it with a critical approach. Try.

Ah...
So it is yourself you are trying to convince then.

Glad we cleared that up.

Have a nice day now.

 

[firedragon]

Are you confused by the word "evidence". Look it up, use the most common meaning like the rest of us. But I recognize your tactic here, trying to muddy the definitions of words so you can evade trying to prove your God exists.

You can use all your effort to try ad hominem. It does not matter. No one tried to change definitions of words in this case. Read the question again and respond or you can resort to your usual above. No problem.

Metaphysics is a bogus subject. You don't take it seriously, do you?

Thats the whole subject. If you think the topic is not metaphysical then you must be accepting that God is physiological.

My approach is the rules of logic. It's that simple. Can you use logic and demonstrate your God exists outside of human imagination?

Finally.

No problem. Lets see. Next post, please await. I have to rush for a matter.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Ah...
So it is yourself you are trying to convince then.

Glad we cleared that up.

Have a nice day now.

Ad hominem. More?

 

[McBell]

Ad hominem. More?

You really need to do some research on logical fallacies and this time, might I suggest you try for comprehension?

 

[F1fan]

You can use all your effort to try ad hominem. It does not matter. No one tried to change definitions of words in this case. Read the question again and respond or you can resort to your usual above. No problem.

You asked me to define a commonly used word with a well known working definition. I think you are being evasive because you know you can't meet the burden of proof for your religious belief.

Thats the whole subject. If you think the topic is not metaphysical then you must be accepting that God is physiological.

I didn't say the topic wasn't metaphysics, I said it's nonsense. And I'm not convinced any gods exist. You're doing well avoiding proving any does. It's almost as if you know you can't do it.

 

[McBell]

It's almost as if you know you can't do it.

"almost as though..."?

Next thing you know they will be claiming that a fly farted in some remote part of the Mariana Trench causing a tidal wave that will resurface Atlantis somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle and that that is complete 100% undeniable solid unscientific proof that god exists.

Can't wait to see what "logical fallacy" they claim this sarcasm is....

 

[Subduction Zone]

"almost as though..."?

Next thing you know they will be claiming that a fly farted in some remote part of the Mariana Trench causing a tidal wave that will resurface Atlantis somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle and that that is complete 100% undeniable solid unscientific proof that god exists.

Can't wait to see what "logical fallacy" they claim this sarcasm is....

Actually that was the Chinese rocket. Its debris landed in roughly that area.

 

[F1fan]

Actually that was the Chinese rocket. Its debris landed in roughly that area.

It was a godless Chinese rocket.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a godless Chinese rocket.

So that is why it missed Mar-a-Lago.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not necessarily. "Evidence" that only convinces yourself is hardly evidence at all. Evidence is something that should convince any rational thinker, but then it must have rational reasoning as to why a particular observation is evidence.

Evidence? Of what? I was talking about perception, and the manner in which one experiences consciousness.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's all the same thing, our minds filter what we sense and experience through our attitudes and assumptions. Skilled thinkers learn to set aside the attitudes and assumptions that distort and color what we see and experience.

I agree, to some extent.

We may disagree on how you’re defining “skilled thinkers”. My definition makes room for mystics, poets, and artists, whose contribution to the sum of human knowledge is as great as that of scientists.

I may have less reverence than you do for human intellect, which is limited. I have reverence also for the spirit, which is limitless, and which can only be perceived by searching without intellect. You may find the evidence for this deep down within yourself, but only if you follow your own advice, set aside assumptions and preconceptions, and look without prejudice.

 

[ratiocinator]

It’s a strawman because it’s your own built up caricature of an argument you pose as a substitute to any argument without asking for the epistemology or his conception of ontology and addressing that.

What argument? I don't recall responding to an argument on this thread, so I can't, even in principle, be using a straw man fallacy. The OP was a question about evidence. Your post that I initially answered seemed like a bit of a rant which accused atheists of all sorts of things but contained nothing of substance to back up those claims.

strawman.

I suggest you look up the term.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is because you are most likely misinterpreting those signs. People do that quite often. When investigated the "signs" are quite often merely confirmation bias.

Nonsense. I know by myself and within myself God exists. I’m 100% sure. No need to prove it to anyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nonsense. I know by myself and within myself God exists. I’m 100% sure. No need to prove it to anyone.

Me too.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Okay, so which god, what signs, and why do you think this god is behind them?

There is only one God and there is nothing in existence that does not reflect the attributes of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’m sure many would be happy to share why they believe in God

I believe in God because of the Messengers of God. That is the best evidence that God exists.

What would be evidence that God exists?

 

[firedragon]

You really need to do some research on logical fallacies and this time, might I suggest you try for comprehension?

Nah. Its alright.