The Problem With Theistic Arguments

[curious_mind]

Seriously? "long" and "winding?" You make it sound as if I said a whole lot but didn't get anywhere. The paragraph wasn't that long... unless you are lazy. Two of the paragraphs you wrote in response are longer than either of mine. What's your excuse? "Long"... give me a damn break.

Relax, it won't do your heart any good.

This isn't what I said at all, and I challenge you to go back and read (for comprehension this time - obviously you thought the paragraph was too "long" - you have admitted as much, and so I have to assume that you read it quickly, and probably completely misinterpretted). WHAT I SAID was that I would believe based on evidence I encountered and that I would only know that evidence once I had encountered it. Meaning I can't tell you what evidence I need in order to believe. I don't know what that is. But if there were evidence I came across, I would assume I would know that evidence was for "God" (if it truly was) when I encountered THE EVIDENCE. Not necessarily "encountered God" - I was talking about the evidence. Again, I would like to mention the idea of "comprehension." So far you are proving to me that this is difficult for you - but you obviously have every chance to change my mind.

This is even worse than i gave you credit for. So you now claim "Meaning I can't tell you what evidence I need in order to believe." yet you said that none of the evidence you had seen was enough for you...so if you do not even know what evidence you need, how can you claim the evidence you have come across is not good enough. That is plain silly. Have some criteria at least or just admit you are confused and do not care.

I only answered your first 2 paragraphs because I had initially given you too much credit and thought you actually had some sort of evidence criteria. You do not, which is laughable. Anyway, see answers in your post above.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is even worse than i gave you credit for. So you now claim "Meaning I can't tell you what evidence I need in order to believe." yet you said that none of the evidence you had seen was enough for you...so if you do not even know what evidence you need, how can you claim the evidence you have come across is not good enough. That is plain silly. Have some criteria at least or just admit you are confused and do not care.

Note that you didn't respond to my bit about the subjectivity of your thoughts on roller-coasters... and the idea that you presenting such a subjective interpretation of a thing is IN NO WAY even close to evidence for anything. Except maybe for the idea that you don't like roller-coasters. And this is very likely some of your best stuff. And here you are, criticizing MY standards of evidence.

It is plain fact that none of the evidence I have been presented with for the existence of God has compelled me to "believe" even one iota. Why is that something I am somehow "not allowed" to state if I am not sure what evidence would actually convince me of God's existence? One of us is certainly being silly... I'll grant you that much.

 

[curious_mind]

Note that you didn't respond to my bit about the subjectivity of your thoughts on roller-coasters... and the idea that you presenting such a subjective interpretation of a thing is IN NO WAY even close to evidence for anything. Except maybe for the idea that you don't like roller-coasters. And this is very likely some of your best stuff. And here you are, criticizing MY standards of evidence.

It is plain fact that none of the evidence I have been presented with for the existence of God has compelled me to "believe" even one iota. Why is that something I am somehow "not allowed" to state if I am not sure what evidence would actually convince me of God's existence? One of us is certainly being silly... I'll grant you that much.

Simple question, you do not have a criteria for the evidence you require, why would you then claim whatever evidence you have seen has not been enough? Bit silly but I shall give you one more chance friend.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Simple question, you do not have a criteria for the evidence you require, why would you then claim whatever evidence you have seen has not been enough? Bit silly but I shall give you one more chance friend.

Your assessment of the situation is very poor indeed. There are likely examples in your own life where you don't necessarily have a caliber, or exact instance of evidence in mind for a given claim, but all you know is that what you ARE being presented is not sufficient.

For example, claims of ghosts. Would you accept a photo in this day and age, when photo-manipulation is being done by 5 year olds? How about a recording of sound? How about some reading off of device you know nothing about the inner workings of? Would you accept these things as evidence of a ghostly presence? If not those, then what WOULD you accept? What would it take to convince you that someone had encountered a ghost if they were telling you about some previous occurrence now? Would you even accept them walking you into a room and "showing" you the ghost? Would that convince you that it was a ghost? And if not that, then what? I, personally, don't know what I would accept as genuine evidence of a ghost. I just don't know. But I DO KNOW that photos are not good enough. I DO KNOW that I am not going to accept a sound recording. I DO KNOW that I am not simply going to take some schmuck's word for it, just because they are holding some contraption that I don't recognize. What would it take to convince me? I am not entirely sure. Something concrete, something cogent, and a description along with it that works to explain WHY this thing is being labeled as a "ghost" and what, precisely that means.

Perhaps that... but, again, I am not sure what forms some of those things take. Why is that so "silly" to not know this? Can you even tell me? You just keep asserting that it is, and then when pressed, just reformulate the exact same statement. I am beginning to think you simply haven't really thought about this at all.

In the end, if YOU are the one making an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present your evidence. That evidence can either compel the person you are trying to convince or not. But it is NOT up to the person you are trying to convince to TELL YOU what evidence to go out and get. The person you are trying to convince may very well not even care about what you're trying to prove (much like I don't give a single crap about "God"). So why should I do ANY legwork of coming up with what constitutes "evidence for God?" That's not my job. I don't care. You're the one who cares... you do the work.

Come back to me when you have - just don't assume that whatever you come up with simply "has to be" accepted by me as evidence unless it is damn near airtight. I've seen far too many claims of evidence that end up being nothing more than "look at the trees" or "I couldn't explain this thing that happened to me." Far, far too many. That crap isn't good enough. Never will be. As to what is "good enough?" Again... you tell me, and then I will inform you why it isn't, or jump on your bandwagon if you actually do produce "the goods."