I'd rewrite that as this, at least for my part
"The message and the life of the messenger are evidence of God"
"No, they are not. They're ordinary words and an ordinary life. To be evidence of a God they would need to transcend human capability at a minimum."
"You need to investigate further."
"Investigate what? More of this vague, flowery language? I've seen enough in what has been reproduced here in this thread."
"You need to investigate further. I know you won't."
"Correct. I have no reason to read more of that, and you can't give me one."
So how do we resolve the matter of whether one group is seeing something not there or the other not seeing something that is? There actually is a good test. Quiz the seers independently and see how well their reports correlate. If most or all give the same report, then they are probably seeing something real. Imagine a color-blind kid who can't tell red from green wondering whether he is being pranked by others the way they conspired about the Santa Claus thing. So, he buys five pair of red socks and five pair of green, has somebody identify which is which for him, he tags them, and has his friends independently identify the color of each. Then he compares their answers. If they give the same report, he knows they see something he doesn't. If they can't agree, he knows that the opposite is the case. The discordant reports of believers are evidence that they see their own minds.
Assumption? There is no sound argument - evidenced or pure reason - that ends, "therefore God," thus that position can only be believed by faith. That is the criterion for belief for a critical thinker - sound conclusion - and thus whoever says that there is a God lacks foundation for that belief by that criterion even if he believes that he is on firm footing according to some other criterion for justified belief.
Did you mean synonymous? They are not synonymous to me. The first is the position of all atheists including agnostic atheists, the majority, and the second only of the so-called strong (gnostic) atheist.
I disagree, but I suspect that we have different definitions of truth. For me, a statement is true only if it is demonstrably correct. For the faith-based believer, it seems truth is whatever he fervently believes. If it feels right, it's true.
Two. Maybe they don't want to be married. And maybe they want to know if they are sexually compatible before marrying. There is no rational reason not to have extramarital sex. Religious dicta to the contrary are not a good reason to do anything.
In response to the comment I just addressed, another poster answered, "Because there is no good reason not to [engage in extramarital sex] if reasonable precautions are taken," and your answer was that?
The thread is about what constitutes evidence for a god. It's not about proving our beliefs. For the critical thinker, it's about justifying them. When believers claim that they have such evidence, it is appropriate for the critical thinker to explain why it doesn't justify their conclusion. It is appropriate to show that you do not have evidence for your beliefs according to those standards for belief. The believers find themselves in a world that respects reason trying to show that they have that in support of their beliefs just as they try to show that science supports them when it does not, either.
Is deluded synonymous with mistaken but sincere to you? If so, he was deluded by your definition. If not, you left out a possibility, a very likely one, leaving you two options - the one you chose, or simply mistaken.
But your method of evaluating evidence is flawed. Just because you looked at evidence and hold an opinion of what it signifies does not mean you are correct. You'd need a sound argument to justify that conclusion, not just a fervent belief, however strong it might be, however certain you are. What's your argument that connects that life and those words to your conclusion that they indicate a god? You have none. It's just gut feeling for you. Do you know what is required to connect the evidence you offer to the conclusion you claim it supports? I've told you a few times.
What does incompatibility mean to you? Just arguing? I told you why I got divorced. I married a Christian woman that I had not lived with or had sex with before marriage. Then I found out we were incompatible in several ways including sexually. Those were the days when I made decisions like who to marry based in faith. So, I eventually left the religion and the marriage, remarried after living together first, and have been happily married 32 years now. The lesson couldn't be clearer to me.
You don't think those last two comments contradict one another? Incidentally, I'll bet that you have eliminated the likeliest reason for there being no evidence of God without cause.
And you don't see that as an argument against the existence of a tri-omni deity that wants to be known, loved, believed, obeyed, and worshiped? It is. It's not evidence against a noninterventionist god, or a limited god who might not be able to manifest, but it's pretty strong evidence that the deity described in the Chrisitan Bible doesn't exist.
Spiritual awareness, huh? What's that? The willingness to believe that prose comes from a deity because it is flowery and hortative? I'd say that you don't have enough critical thinking skill to recognize that those are words men could have written.
And what did he do to convince you he channeled God? Did he turn water into wine or rise from the dead? Somebody else commented that he was honest and trustworthy.
Why should he? Reading more from your sources won't make a difference. And as I said to another poster, I'm pretty sure that what you are calling truth here wouldn't meet an empiricist's criteria for using that word.
