Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Thomas, that's another example of a bigger problem that religion has created.

The thing is, if something good has happened, it doesn't matter who did it. It doesn't matter who cooked your food, who bought it, who made your meal possible... it doesn't matter which driver avoided the crash. It doesn't matter which fireman saved the lady. It doesn't matter who designed security systems that save people every day. No one gives a shit. If all ends well, they say "Thank God." and they don't give a crap about who really saved their asses.

And the worst thing? It's often THEM who save themselves. And instead of realizing that they did the right thing, acted exactly like they had to, followed the rules, worked their asses off, for everything to go well, and accepting the idea that it's OKAY to feel good about what you've done... all they do is attribute it to 'God'.

Seriously, screw God. If you've worked your ass off to get into college, don't thank God. If you've worked your ass off to be able to pursue your dream career and fulfill your dreams... don't thank God. Thank your-fucking-self.

Be cocky.

I couldn't agree more.

I know it's a bit off-topic...

Not really, I often hear the argument "God got me off the street, God helped me get off drugs, god made me pass the last exam" etc, but he/she/it/they most certainly didn't.
Clapping your hands together and talking to the ceiling won't get you off the street, won't get you off drugs, won't bring you knowledge for the test or bribe your teachers/professors.
So thank your fucking self if you find the courage and/or power and/or help to overcome your problems or manage to do something good for your life. In my opinion you were not off topic because you showed how easy people accept "pseudo evidence for God" and how a rationally thinking person can only dismiss it or even call it pathetic (what i sure do).

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hi, TruthisLife, and welcome.

credible witnesses

No such thing.

Why suddenly ignore them when we come to We're talking about living forever here with adventure unlimited abilities to explore the universe. I mean think about it. Why be biased against life and opportunities like this?

This isn't about ignoring the standards already set, it's about discussing what actually meets those standards in this particular instance. Certainly, we have methods for determining the veracity of claims, but what actually constitutes evidence in favour of any given claim varies from claim to claim.

both science and religion have produced progress of astounding value that ALL benefit from today..

Errr, what? Enlighten us, oh wise one, as to the progress of astounding value that ALL benefit from today that has been produced by making shit up about made-up entities/

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hi,
Sorry if my responses are delayed sometimes and I will probably not be able to answer much here, but will do a little sort of in order of how they were posted. I'm going to focus my free time on the debate with Inferno where I will detail things a lot more there than here.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=8484&p=123817#p123817

If people say there is no evidence for God (or that there is no evidence for universal common descent), there are 3 options:
1) They don't know what counts as rational evidence by even secular standards or how to evaluate it in any normal way (common)
2) They have been deprived of information or told falsehoods about it or how to evaluate it (most common)
3) They are intentionally lying.

I've listened to a lot of atheists, recently Aronra's "testimony" of becoming an atheist. If I only knew what he did and that was my only experience, it would be quite rational to become an atheist. I agree. I'd even say that his conversion from the blind faith/pseudo-Christianity he was in, might be positive for him. But, as we will see in the debate, compared to the alternatives Christianity has profound amounts of evidence in numerous areas (remember that it is crucial to compare hypotheses on the same question. You couldn't falsify universal common descent by pitting it against photosynthesis. So, to try and falsify a worldview by comparing it to something that is not a competitor at that level just isn't fair or rational in any way. We must compare hypothesis on the SAME question to be rational or scientific).

The burden of proof is simple. Christianity just has to provide more and better quality evidence than rival worldviews whether that be Hinduism, materialism, atheism, New Age or whatever. In my investigation of many worldviews, I have found things to respect and admire in many worldviews, including atheism (which in some senses is for sure a worldview and some atheists are saying that it is, but naturalism or materialism is the view which atheists embrace which may be a worldview in more senses than atheism technically is), but I have yet to find any worldview that comes anywhere close to providing the evidence, contributing to the improvement of society, challenging the status quo and establishments and many other things as much as Christianity HAS done for many centuries already. It's precisely because it has done this that many of Christianity and creation science's greatest proponents used to be atheists, but were converted by the evidence, that Christianity has met the burden of proof for centuries in the minds of many of the world's greatest thinkers in philosophy, science, history, law and other areas.

They will use such reasons as "you should not test your god", or, "that would eliminate faith".

Anyone who tells you this or uses this is straw manning the Bible EXTREMELY badly. Biblical faith has nothing to do with assertions. PERIOD. It has to do with salvation, NOT with proving God is real. When God asks people to put faith in Him, its either after they have seen or experienced evidence for Him being real themselves, a supernatural level proof of some sort, or based on the credible testimony of others who have seen or experienced these things. Faith is based solidly on evidence and God explicitly tells us that we can test him in different places, such as Malachi 3:8-10.

Moses told the Israelites, "Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those signs and great wonders'" 29:2....(the chapter goes on to recount MANY things Israel experienced firsthand). Moses ends his speech listing all the evidence and asking them to choose the best way for life based on evidence and rational comparisons.

Paul charges us to test everything. "But test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Stay away from every kind of evil. I Thess. 5:21-22.

Professor of systematic theology at Princeton, A.A. Hodge, agreed saying, "Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition." Faith divorced from facts causes ignorance, impedes progress and harms human life.

Genuine Biblical Christianity does not and did not rest on assertions or blind faith at all, nor has its logic failed at least not if logic still is based on evidence and inferences from that evidence. After God gives us much evidence that He exists and of the benefits in THIS life of doing things His way, God does ask us to trust that track record and Him for some things that we can't test directly. One major reason we are alive is to learn to trust God first in areas we can check and test (God tells people, "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good.") and then based on that trust Him in a few areas that are difficult or impossible to check. God gives us I'd say ~70-80% evidence, and asks for about 20-30% trust. No other worldview that I'm aware of requires as little "blind faith" as Christianity, least of all atheism, which requires more blind faith than even most religions I would consider false.

None of us have a right to just set up any trivial silly test we wish to for ideas we don't hold. If that's OK, then I can just say"¦Universal common descent must prove it is real by coming to my house and cooking me some blueberry cheesecake. That would be stupid of course"¦but it's no different from the card trick demand above. Rational thinking requires us to test each worldview by the claims IT ITSELF makes and then compare which one has the best evidence for answers to the most important questions overall.

If we can just set up any silly test we wish without regard to what a view actually claims for itself and without regard to what questions really matter in life, I can think of tests that will falsify pretty much anything anyone can think of. That's a road to rational suicide and the demolition of pretty much our entire civilization. Furthermore, if God was a slave to human whims like this, there would be no development of trust..which is a primary objective for God"¦and it could be argued that I God who is a slave to human whims is not even God.

Well you should ask yourself that question. Why would we be biased against "living forever ... with adventure [and]
unlimited abilities to explore the universe"? And the answer is we are not biased against it we just don't see any reason to suppose that it is true. On the other hand is there any reason you might be biased in favour of that proposition? Obviously there is.

On the scientific evidence gods do not hold up and only by lowering the standard to documentary evidence can we find support for the claims of Christianity, but also for the claims of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. Why would God make us rely on such flimsy documentary evidence? Surely as an omnipotent creator he could provide much stronger evidence, it can't be that hard.

The scientific evidence for God most certainly does hold up for God, although like Dawkins, I'll say that "It is absurd to claim that something you can't see isn't real.". There is no lowering of documentary evidence standards at all. The Bible is far from the only evidence from God. But, like the Constitution, it is the original document that others must be tested by precisely because it has weathered and beaten so many rivals and challengers in the area of evidence. I'll explain this more in the debate.

Are you biased Aught3 and others? Yes, of course. Am I biased? Yes, of course. Every person on the planet is biased whether we admit it or not. Some have less bias, others more. We are biased by what we were given to study vs. what we were not. We were biased by what we have read and watched, vs. what we have not and more. I am quite sure I'm on the less biased side since
A) I've read/watched at least several 100 hours of the best proponents of atheism and universal common descent and
B) I see not the slightest rational reason to follow something that doesn't have rational evidence that it is true, esp. if it doesn't produce benefits and/or improvements in this life.

It's because of these reasons that I'm a Christian and not atheist. I'm biased in favor of the philosophy that has solid evidence for God existing as well as directly leading to the establishment of modern science, many human rights, public education, human rights and much more. I'm biased in favor of the evidence from even secular sources like National Geographic, Blue Zone, NIH, NCI and others that following Bible health principles adds about 10 years on average and that it restores many marriages and makes sex life better and so much more. I see so many benefits that have derived directly from following Christianity (others views have some good things to be sure. That must not be denied and it counts as evidence for them too. 100 doesn't beat 500 and CERTAINLY 0 or 10 doesn't beat 500. The 100 would be other religions. The 0-10 would be atheism and the 500 Christianity. It just doesn't make any senseon any rational planet for anyone to follow 0 instead of 500 just because there's a view with 100 points, etc. It's just ridiculous to say that since there are several hypotheses with good evidence, we have to throw them all away and lack belief in all of them. That's NEVER EVER done in any area of secular science"¦but it's a common technique of many atheists. )

Why should you believe something 2-3 millenia old? Easy. Because you do that with many other things ranging from fossils which are claimed to be millions of years old to many ancient historical documents which everyone accepts as accurate. Age has nothing to do with whether something is fact, useful or true. We have different ways of checking credibility and THAT is what counts, not the age of something. If age is the criteria, then in a few centuries or millennia, gravity, natural selection, universal common descent, atheism, Christianity, the history of America, Europe and Asia for our time and others will have to be discarded as myth regardless of how much evidence or credibility they have. And if we don't learn the lessons of history, then we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

The only problem is if, in this case you were to look at Bill and say "no thank you, I payed more in taxes last year than you did in your last 2 years. I don't feel comfortable about accepting your money - besides, I really don;t like working in the Windows OS environment more than I do a Linux one" I would be tortured for eternity.

And, pause for a moment - if Steve Jobs offered you the same deal, and you accepted it over Bill Gates?

A) There is no eternal hell. Period. That's one of the biggest myths that Satan has been able to deceive quite a few Christians into believing and teaching. See http://www.helltruth.com for a good overview of why and how this concept came into some churches by them compromising and idolizing Greek philosophy over God's plain words. There is a hell which does enact final justice. But, it's only a merciful end to the alternative"¦unending evil, torture, war, rape and all sorts of abuse and sin. Unending sin would be a hell for trillions upon trillions infinitely worse than the quick end and short end to sin that is the real hell. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked the Bible says. But, he must at some points step in and end horrible situations that cause unending pain and misery. That is what hell does.

B) I'd take Bill's money in an instant"¦but I have long been involved in poverty campaigns and strongly oppose Republican economic policies (which is 1 big reason I campaigned for Obama who has done some good things..but I wish he had done more"¦but he was given one of the worst situations in US history by the incompetent puppet Bush.)

A god is an all-powerful, all-knowing creator entity. He has no explanation for his existence, he just is. God has every possible power and possesses all possible knowledge of the past, present, and future. The attributes of god make him a much less parsimonious explanation than delusion, fakery, or even hyper-intelligent aliens.

Our options are: A God who always existed (Christianity) or infinite regression. Both are impossible to explain and require faith.

I agree that God has all POSSIBLE knowledge, but that doesn't = ALL knowledge of the future. I agree with the Open view of God's foreknowledge"¦meaning that it is limited in certain ways by His choice to create beings with free choice.

No, God is by far the most parsimonious explanation and has not the slightest similarity to delusion, fakery, etc. It is a fundamental violation of science to claim that we should look for any other explanation than God. That is extremely bad logic.

Instead theists need to present positive evidence for their god, a verifiable manifestation, because that is the only type of evidence we should accept.

No, no, no for reasons already listed above. We actually DO have verified manifestations of the supernatural in the past and present"¦but if you demand this of theism, then naturalism, atheism and any rivals must meet the exact same standard in areas such as proving how life and the universe got started as well as the laws of science and more. This kind of demand is one of the worst double standards in all history. Science and rational thinking DEMAND that all hypotheses on the same question by judged by the SAME standard. If you don't accept this, then nearly all of science falls apart. Using consistent standards to judge views on the same question is the absolutely unmoveable and indisputable foundation of any rational thought. Otherwise, people can just willy nilly set up double standards to follow the least evidence in some fields they wish..and instantly, gravity, photosynthesis, laws of science and all sorts of things can be just dismissed based on their a priori likes or dislikes. You can NOT set up double standards like this and still claim to be rational. PERIOD.

CosmicJ, Yes, it's people working that often is the reason they succeed, do well, etc. I did that for sure. However, it is us using the gifts from God such as our minds, rational faculties, consciousness, interacting with other things that God created, that makes it possible. It's the union of what we've been given by God and using those gifts well that has founded everything good in human history.

Hi, TruthisLife, and welcome.

Thanks!

credible witnesses

No such thing.
---
Sorry, but yes there is and even a number of secular scholars agree. If consistent standards are used, it's indisputable that there are many credible witnesses.

both science and religion have produced progress of astounding value that ALL benefit from today..

Errr, what? Enlighten us, oh wise one, as to the progress of astounding value that ALL benefit from today that has been produced by making shit up about made-up entities/[/quote]

There's nothing made up about God, period. What is of astounding value? There is a LOT ranging from 1.3 billion empowered to escape poverty in just the last 20 years, to 10+ years extra life on average and a lot more. Maybe one of the most important would be that out of 1000s of cultures, it was the Bible, Creation science and Christian and Jewish scientists that laid and built the foundations of modern science, it's most important processes/verification methods (the modern scientific method, the peer review process, occam's razor, falsification, the 1st scientific society in history, etc.) and pioneered most of its branches. See this presentation by Dr. Hannam at the Royal Society (Dr. Hannam has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge and Nature and New Scientist highly recommend his work.) See this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k24Q01vck

The records of history show that much of modern science as well as other aspects of modern civilization was built on a theistic superstructure and modern atheism/secularism is largely a facade built on that. Not only the foundation but much of the interior that holds up the structure was built largely by creationists, and they were drawing both principles and specific scientific concepts directly from the Word of God.

Dr. Hannam in the presentation above is an evolutionist and has debated against creationists. But, he admits that creation science philosophy was directly responsible for building many important things in the foundation of modern science and there's much more beyond what he says.
Bryan

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

The only reason why religious people laid down the foundations of science is because at that time, guess who had the best resources? The church. The most valuable books, the best education... the church. It's not due to religion that science laid its foundations, it's just a coincidence, that when science began to grow, the church always had the best resources.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hi,
*snip* Logical fallacies, testimony, appeals to authority, unsubstantiated claims, blather, more nonsense, word salad, whining about AronRa, quotes from fairy tale book.*unsnip*
Bryan

Why say so much, where you're actually saying nothing? A large volume of random chatter doesn't make your lack of evidence any less obvious.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

If people say there is no evidence for God (or that there is no evidence for universal common descent)

Why are you lumping them together like that? Universal common descent is an evidentially supported postulate, while god is a fantasy entity with zero evidential support.

, there are 3 options:
1) They don't know what counts as rational evidence by even secular standards or how to evaluate it in any normal way (common)
2) They have been deprived of information or told falsehoods about it or how to evaluate it (most common)
3) They are intentionally lying.

You missed 4) there is no evidence.

Of course, you could do what no other supernaturalist in 5,000 years has ever been able to do, namely to present soem critically robust evidence. Of course, if you can do that, there are some very serious men in Stockholm who would like a word with you, and they have a nice, shiny medal awaiting the inscription of your name alongside a picture of the man who invented dynamite. You'd like a nice, shiny medal, wouldn't you?

I've listened to a lot of atheists, recently Aronra's "testimony" of becoming an atheist. If I only knew what he did and that was my only experience, it would be quite rational to become an atheist. I agree. I'd even say that his conversion from the blind faith/pseudo-Christianity he was in, might be positive for him.

Ah, so he wasn't born in Scotland, then?

But, as we will see in the debate, compared to the alternatives Christianity has profound amounts of evidence in numerous areas

The floor is yours. Whenever you're ready. I normally spend the majority of my time on another forum, but you have my full attention for this.

(remember that it is crucial to compare hypotheses on the same question. You couldn't falsify universal common descent by pitting it against photosynthesis.

And yet you lumped UCD in with your magic man not a moment ago.

So, to try and falsify a worldview by comparing it to something that is not a competitor at that level just isn't fair or rational in any way. We must compare hypothesis on the SAME question to be rational or scientific).

I'm with you. Now, about that evidence...

The burden of proof is simple. Christianity just has to provide more and better quality evidence than rival worldviews whether that be Hinduism, materialism, atheism, New Age or whatever.

Actually, I'm willing to make allowances for you. Any evidence at all will do. Indeed, there's no need to bring other religions into it. Just evidence that this entity exists will suffice.

In my investigation of many worldviews, I have found things to respect and admire in many worldviews,

Good for you. Now, about that evidence...

including atheism (which in some senses is for sure a worldview

No it isn't. It's merely the absence of a single belief. Indeed, it doesn't even inform my worldview in any significant sense, let alone actually constitute a worldview.

and some atheists are saying that it is,

They're wrong. Who are they, so I can suitably chastise them for fuckwittery?

but naturalism or materialism is the view which atheists embrace

Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. I'm an atheist, and I'm neither a materialist nor a naturalist. I once considered myself a materialist, but then I realised that this is a metaphysical claim in exactly the same mould as a made-up deity like yours. Of course, what this has to do with your provision of evidence is anybody's guess.

which may be a worldview in more senses than atheism technically is),

Certainly, but I don't hold it (or them), so hardly relevant in my case.

but I have yet to find any worldview that comes anywhere close to providing the evidence

Evidence which you have yet to begin providing.

contributing to the improvement of society,

Excuse me while I go and have a hernia operation after the laughing fit you just gave me. What fucking improvement to society was christianity providing in 1348, pray tell, when half of Europe was kissing the arse of your celestial peeping-tom while the other half were dying horribly of the black death?

challenging the status quo and establishments

You haven't studied much history, have you? For most of the last 2,000 years, christianity has been the fucking establishment, and was certainly not interested in challenging the status quo, as that would require that it challenged its own bloody power and position. Indeed, in recent times, when the status quo actually began to be challenged, your lot screamed of bloody persecution, and still do so in any arena of discourse in which your fucked-up, made-up shit is not given a privileged status.

Meanwhile, about that evidence...

and many other things as much as Christianity HAS done for many centuries already.

Shall we ask Tomas de Torquemada about that? Much of what has stemmed from christianity in the last 20 centuries has done so under the umbrella of enforced conformity to doctrine, and all of it was bad.

It's precisely because it has done this that many of Christianity and creation science's greatest proponents used to be atheists, but were converted by the evidence,

Oh, shit. I thought this was going to be a serious discussion and that some evidence was going to be forthcoming, but you have just erected the phrase 'creation science' so I guess we can forget all your claims about provision of evidence. If cretinists had any evidence, they wouldn't be trying to support their ignorant guff by attacking valid science, they'd simply present the fucking evidence, because this is how science is conducted. There is no such thing as creation science.

that Christianity has met the burden of proof for centuries in the minds of many of the world's greatest thinkers in philosophy, science, history, law and other areas.

Well, apart from that time when admitting to not believing in your preposterous cosmic curtain-twitcher resulted in horrible death, believing in it practically rules out being classified as a great thinker.

Anyone who tells you this or uses this is straw manning the Bible EXTREMELY badly. Biblical faith has nothing to do with assertions. PERIOD.

Bollocks. The bible is a collection of assertions, few of which are supportable, and many of which are simply flat-out wrong. The idea that one can affect the colour of livestock by having the parents shag alongside coloured sticks, to name but one example of the fucknuttery contained therein.

It has to do with salvation,

Salvation from what, exactly? From the consequences of the actions of two people who never existed, and for which your god sacrificed himself to himself? Don't make me fucking laugh.

NOT with proving God is real.

Just as well, since the entity described in that book doesn't exist.

When God asks people to put faith in Him,

And where does he do that? Not the bible, because that wasn't written by him, but by ignorant, piss-stained bronze-age goatherders.

its either after they have seen or experienced evidence for Him being real themselves,

Ah, a hallucination, then.

a supernatural level proof of some sort,

Again, hallucination, or other delusion.

or based on the credible testimony of others

Dealt with this. There's no such thing. Eyewitness accounts and personal testimony are never reliable or credible.

who have seen or experienced these things.

Who have also experienced hallucinations, you mean.

Faith is based solidly on evidence

Bollocks. Faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of evidence.

and God explicitly tells us that we can test him in different places, such as Malachi 3:8-10.

Really? Shall we take a look at what the text actually says?

3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

No mention of a test there. Another case of the apologist not knowing his text as well as the atheist?

On the other hand, we have Deuteronomy 6:16

Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God.

Moving on...

Moses told the Israelites, "Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those signs and great wonders'" 29:2....(the chapter goes on to recount MANY things Israel experienced firsthand). Moses ends his speech listing all the evidence and asking them to choose the best way for life based on evidence and rational comparisons.

So still no evidence of the existence of this entity, then?

Paul charges us to test everything. "But test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Stay away from every kind of evil. I Thess. 5:21-22.

And yet, in 1 Corinthians he says:

Believeth all things.

Can't beat a biblical contradiction for a bit of fun. Now, about that evidence...

Professor of systematic theology at Princeton, A.A. Hodge, agreed saying, "Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition." Faith divorced from facts causes ignorance, impedes progress and harms human life.

He's talking ahit, but then what can you expect from a man whose qualification is in making shit up about made-up entities?

Genuine Biblical Christianity does not and did not rest on assertions or blind faith at all, nor has its logic failed at least not if logic still is based on evidence and inferences from that evidence.

Evidence which we're still waiting on. However, one of the core rules of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which you just violated in the words of Paul, a man who never met your cosmic Jewish maggot-buffet, incidentally.

After God gives us much evidence that He exists and of the benefits in THIS life of doing things His way,

What evidence would that be then? Those men in Stockholm are waiting patiently.

God does ask us to trust that track record and Him for some things that we can't test directly.

Would that include all assertions concerning his existence? Because we certainly can't test that, and no evidence has ever been provided, nor for any other of the rectally extracted guff propounded by the terminally credulous.

One major reason we are alive is to learn to trust God first in areas we can check and test (God tells people, "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good.") and then based on that trust Him in a few areas that are difficult or impossible to check.

That still leaves all of them, because no evidence has yet been presented, and all the areas that can be checked regarding the veracity of christianity's claims have demonstrated it to be fulll of shit. Going to rectify that any time soon?

[ quote]God gives us I'd say ~70-80% evidence,[/quote]

Can't wait to see it. Chop chop!

and asks for about 20-30% trust.

Trust must be earned, and I don't trust your assertions. I have no problem trusting your astral knob-jockey, as long as I have evidence that he actually has any basis in reality.

No other worldview that I'm aware of requires as little "blind faith" as Christianity,

Then you don't get out enough, because it's ALL blind faith.

least of all atheism, which requires more blind faith than even most religions I would consider false.

In what logically consistent universe does rejection of fuckwitted claims concerning magic entities require fucking faith?

None of us have a right to just set up any trivial silly test we wish to for ideas we don't hold.

Bollocks. Ideas are disposable entities, and bad ideas exist only to be disposed of,. We do this by testing them., If you can't present the evidence, then we need go no further, because your assertion has failed the first and most fundamental test. It really is that simple.

If that's OK, then I can just say"¦Universal common descent must prove it is real by coming to my house and cooking me some blueberry cheesecake. That would be stupid of course"¦but it's no different from the card trick demand above.

Really? Since UCD is a hypothesis describing a process, while your magic man is allegedly omnipotent and can intervene in the cosmos whenever it suits his administrative convenience, how is this not different? Would you expect gravity to be able to perform physical feats of this nature?

Rational thinking requires us to test each worldview by the claims IT ITSELF makes and then compare which one has the best evidence for answers to the most important questions overall.

Did that. Yours failed, not least because of the absurd attributes your fellows decided to imbue your imaginary friend with, which are logically absurd, contradictory and/or mutually exclusive. More importantly, I don't need to weigh your idiotic claims against any others, and if you had the first understanding of logic, you'd know that such an action is fallacious, constituting a false dichotomy. Not that I expect a cretinist to understand logic, of course.

If we can just set up any silly test we wish without regard to what a view actually claims for itself and without regard to what questions really matter in life,

No, we test a claim by its content. Your claims have been tested, and they have failed, and that's without your utter failure to present any evidence. Of course, I'll still keep an eye on this topic just in case, because I'm a sucker for a good story, but you and I both know that no such evidence exists. If it did, one of the hoardes of the terminally fuckwitted would have presented it in the last 5,000 years, and it would be part of mainstream science. As it is, not one single process or phenomenon ever elucidated by science has required magic for its explanation.

I can think of tests that will falsify pretty much anything anyone can think of.

This should be fun, not least because it's fairly clear that the first three words of that are false. Please, though, knock yourself out. It'll give me something to chuckle on over my Yoohoos in the morning.

That's a road to rational suicide and the demolition of pretty much our entire civilization. Furthermore, if God was a slave to human whims like this, there would be no development of trust..which is a primary objective for God"¦and it could be argued that I God who is a slave to human whims is not even God.

He's still fucked then. Trust must be earned. Your magic man hasn't earned it, and nor can he, because he doesn't fucking exist.

The scientific evidence for God most certainly does hold up for God,

Where is it, then, so that we don't merely have to take your entirely unreliable word for it? I want to see this scientific evidence, so that I can see if it's critically robust or not.

although like Dawkins, I'll say that "It is absurd to claim that something you can't see isn't real

That depends entirely on what you're talking about. If you're talking about something that has been described with logically absurd and mutually exclusive attributes, then it's absurd to claim that it is real, and only rational to state flat out that it cannot be real. Your immoral little masturbation fantasy is just such an entity.

There is no lowering of documentary evidence standards at all. The Bible is far from the only evidence from God. But, like the Constitution, it is the original document that others must be tested by precisely because it has weathered and beaten so many rivals and challengers in the area of evidence.

Well, apart from it being bollocks, and apart form the fact that there are no reliable extra-biblical sources, we're left only with your rectally extracted blind assertions and circular reasoning.

I'll explain this more in the debate.

Who are you debating? I probably won't watch, because I've seen lots of cretinists get their arses handed to them, and there's no novelty in it for me any more.

Are you biased Aught3 and others? Yes, of course. Am I biased? Yes, of course. Every person on the planet is biased whether we admit it or not. Some have less bias, others more. We are biased by what we were given to study vs. what we were not. We were biased by what we have read and watched, vs. what we have not and more.

I'm certainly biased, toward that which is supported by evidence. Still waiting for some of that.

I am quite sure I'm on the less biased side since

Bollocks.

A) I've read/watched at least several 100 hours of the best proponents of atheism and universal common descent and
B) I see not the slightest rational reason to follow something that doesn't have rational evidence that it is true, esp. if it doesn't produce benefits and/or improvements in this life.

Of course not. If you had rational reasons to believe the idiotic things you do, you woudn't be irrational.

It's because of these reasons that I'm a Christian and not atheist. I'm biased in favor of the philosophy that has solid evidence for God existing as well as directly leading to the establishment of modern science, many human rights, public education, human rights and much more.

Human rights AND human rights?

Tell us, genius, which human rights were afforded the Amalekites, the Midianites, the victims of Torquemada and Matthew Hopkins, et al.

I'm biased in favor of the evidence from even secular sources like National Geographic, Blue Zone, NIH, NCI and others that following Bible health principles adds about 10 years on average and that it restores many marriages and makes sex life better and so much more.

All specious. In any event, it's hardly surprising that blindly following the crowd reduces stress, not least when, if you don;t believe, youo're confronted with fuckwits threatening you with eternal torture.

I see so many benefits that have derived directly from following Christianity

None of which counts as evidence that your fuckwittery has any basis in reality.

(others views have some good things to be sure. That must not be denied and it counts as evidence for them too.

No it doesn't. That something makes you feel good doesn't make it true. This particular logical fallacy is known as 'affirming the consequent'.

100 doesn't beat 500 and CERTAINLY 0 or 10 doesn't beat 500. The 100 would be other religions. The 0-10 would be atheism and the 500 Christianity. It just doesn't make any senseon any rational planet for anyone to follow 0 instead of 500 just because there's a view with 100 points, etc. It's just ridiculous to say that since there are several hypotheses with good evidence, we have to throw them all away and lack belief in all of them. That's NEVER EVER done in any area of secular science"¦but it's a common technique of many atheists. )

And it's ridiculous to compare believing one bit of idiocy and believing another bit of idiocy and then suggesting, based on some numbers you extracted directly from your anus, that one f them is better than the other. They're both idiotic, and neither of them compares to not believing idiocy full stop.

Why should you believe something 2-3 millenia old? Easy. Because you do that with many other things ranging from fossils which are claimed to be millions of years old to many ancient historical documents which everyone accepts as accurate.

We don't believe the fossil evidence on the basis that it's millions of years old, genius, but because it is in accord with all the rest of the evidence. Argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't going to win you any arguments here.

Age has nothing to do with whether something is fact, useful or true. We have different ways of checking credibility and THAT is what counts, not the age of something. If age is the criteria, then in a few centuries or millennia, gravity, natural selection, universal common descent, atheism, Christianity, the history of America, Europe and Asia for our time and others will have to be discarded as myth regardless of how much evidence or credibility they have. And if we don't learn the lessons of history, then we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

What is this incoherent bollocks?

A) There is no eternal hell. Period.

Oh really? Once again the believer doesn;t know his own text.

Matthew 25:41, 46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

And

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

You want more?

Revelation 14:10-11
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

So, when you go to hell for this heresy, what will be your defence?

That's one of the biggest myths that Satan has been able to deceive quite a few Christians into believing and teaching. See http://www.helltruth.com for a good overview of why and how this concept came into some churches by them compromising and idolizing Greek philosophy over God's plain words. There is a hell which does enact final justice. But, it's only a merciful end to the alternative"¦unending evil, torture, war, rape and all sorts of abuse and sin. Unending sin would be a hell for trillions upon trillions infinitely worse than the quick end and short end to sin that is the real hell. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked the Bible says. But, he must at some points step in and end horrible situations that cause unending pain and misery. That is what hell does.

Your own book of drivel disagrees with you.

[quote[Our options are: A God who always existed (Christianity) or infinite regression. Both are impossible to explain and require faith.[/quote]

False dichotomy. You're missing option 3, namely a universe that always existed.

I agree that God has all POSSIBLE knowledge, but that doesn't = ALL knowledge of the future.

Bollocks. ALL knowledge of the future is a subset of all knowledge. You can't have it both ways. Either he is omniscient or he is not.

I agree with the Open view of God's foreknowledge"¦meaning that it is limited in certain ways by His choice to create beings with free choice.

Another apologetic fabrication.

No, God is by far the most parsimonious explanation

Absolute fucking horseshit. Your idiotic magic man is the very definition of unparsimonious. He's an additional entity. It's that simple.

and has not the slightest similarity to delusion, fakery, etc. It is a fundamental violation of science to claim that we should look for any other explanation than God. That is extremely bad logic.

Demonstrating precisely how toxic this fuckwittery really is, if you think that what you just said bears any resemblance to logic. The reason we seek is to find. We find no evidence for your magic man, and not without good reason, since he's entirely a fabrication.

No, no, no for reasons already listed above. We actually DO have verified manifestations of the supernatural in the past and present"¦

Where? Where is the evidence for these alleged manifestations?

but if you demand this of theism, then naturalism, atheism and any rivals must meet the exact same standard in areas such as proving how life and the universe got started as well as the laws of science and more.

Utter bollocks. Atheism makes no fucking claims. As for naturalism, I don't hold that view. Now, about that evidence you keep banging on about but never produce. When can we expect to see that?

This kind of demand is one of the worst double standards in all history. Science and rational thinking DEMAND that all hypotheses on the same question by judged by the SAME standard. If you don't accept this, then nearly all of science falls apart.

I do accept this. Where is your evidence?

Using consistent standards to judge views on the same question is the absolutely unmoveable and indisputable foundation of any rational thought. Otherwise, people can just willy nilly set up double standards to follow the least evidence in some fields they wish..and instantly, gravity, photosynthesis, laws of science and all sorts of things can be just dismissed based on their a priori likes or dislikes. You can NOT set up double standards like this and still claim to be rational. PERIOD.

I haven't set up any double standard, because I'm not making any claims (although I'm happy to demonstrate that your magic man doesn't exist, as elucidated by your own book of idiocy.

CosmicJ, Yes, it's people working that often is the reason they succeed, do well, etc. I did that for sure. However, it is us using the gifts from God such as our minds, rational faculties, consciousness, interacting with other things that God created, that makes it possible. It's the union of what we've been given by God and using those gifts well that has founded everything good in human history.

Blind assertion, just like your cosmic voyeur.

Sorry, but yes there is and even a number of secular scholars agree. If consistent standards are used, it's indisputable that there are many credible witnesses.

Wrong. Who are these secular scholars, and I'll go and beat them about the head with their stupidity as well? Eyewitness testimony is useless, and this is trivial to demonstrate.

There's nothing made up about God, period.

Really? Then you'll be able to present that evidence you promised. All we've seen so far is hot air of a spectacularly turgid order.

What is of astounding value? There is a LOT ranging from 1.3 billion empowered to escape poverty in just the last 20 years, to 10+ years extra life on average and a lot more.

Hmmmmmm.I'm pretty sure that a robust view to the statistic of population below the poverty line by religion will show that this is a lie.

Maybe one of the most important would be that out of 1000s of cultures, it was the Bible, Creation science and Christian and Jewish scientists that laid and built the foundations of modern science, it's most important processes/verification methods (the modern scientific method, the peer review process, occam's razor, falsification, the 1st scientific society in history, etc.) and pioneered most of its branches. See this presentation by Dr. Hannam at the Royal Society (Dr. Hannam has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge and Nature and New Scientist highly recommend his work.) See this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k24Q01vck

Well, we've already covered that ground. None of the credit for any of that can be laid at the door of christianity, but at the door of the individuals who made those steps. Further, that most of them lived under the reign of enforced conformity to doctrine somewhat taints your figures.

In short, I reject your assertion that christianity had anything to do with any of that.

The records of history show that much of modern science as well as other aspects of modern civilization was built on a theistic superstructure and modern atheism/secularism is largely a facade built on that.

Bollocks. Atheism has been around a good deal longer than theism. It is the default. Further, modern science was built upon a foundation of paying attention to what reality was telling us. This, of course, might explain why the vast majority of scientists are non-believrs.

Not only the foundation but much of the interior that holds up the structure was built largely by creationists, and they were drawing both principles and specific scientific concepts directly from the Word of God.

What fucking scientific principles came form the word of god? Indeed, where is this word of god,m as opposed to the words of feeble-minded fuckwits contained in the babble?

Dr. Hannam in the presentation above is an evolutionist and has debated against creationists. But, he admits that creation science philosophy was directly responsible for building many important things in the foundation of modern science and there's much more beyond what he says.
Bryan

Then he's talking shit, and should be suitably chastised. Creation science doesn't exist.


Now, about that evidence...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Was there a reason why dotoree needed a second name for the same old bullshit?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

@hack, thank you, i needed a good laugh today.
btw he is debating Inferno, topic - atheism vs bible, which one has the better case ( :roll: )
My best guess is he is saving the alleged ground shaking evidence to sneak it in between the usual walls of argumentum ad fallacius spammum.

@TruthisLife7 i feel discriminated, you totally ignored my reply.. oh well.. I doubt there is anything factual you could have said to defend the Bible or your position anyway.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

@hack, thank you, i needed a good laugh today.
btw he is debating Inferno, topic - atheism vs bible, which one has the better case ( :roll: )
My best guess is he is saving the alleged ground shaking evidence to sneak it in between the usual walls of argumentum ad fallacius spammum.

Yeah... it will certainly be a lot to read, even though he's not actually planning on saying anything of value.

 

[Mauricio Duque]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

None of us have a right to just set up any trivial silly test we wish to for ideas we don't hold. If that's OK, then I can just say"¦Universal common descent must prove it is real by coming to my house and cooking me some blueberry cheesecake. That would be stupid of course"¦but it's no different from the card trick demand above.

Another excuse...

The example you give is wrong, because UCD its not thing that could go to your house, but your god, actully is a thing that could talk to people to pass information, and if he isnt able to pass this simple test, than hes no diferent from something that dont exist.

Your self sayd:

One major reason we are alive is to learn to trust God first in areas we can check and test (God tells people, "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good.") and then based on that trust Him in a few areas that are difficult or impossible to check.

The test i passed to you is an area that we can check, so dont enter in contradition here.

None of us have a right to just set up any trivial silly test we wish to for ideas we don't hold.

That is just a awesome excuse, is like sayng:

"Only the people that alread agree with me, can test my beliefs".

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Mauricio, check your messages.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

CosmicJ, Yes, it's people working that often is the reason they succeed, do well, etc. I did that for sure. However, it is us using the gifts from God such as our minds, rational faculties, consciousness, interacting with other things that God created, that makes it possible. It's the union of what we've been given by God and using those gifts well that has founded everything good in human history.

And it wasn't God who created the problems in the first place... no?

Oh, of course... God's... TESTING us. And apparently you're failing.

 

[Aught3]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

The scientific evidence for God most certainly does hold up

Examples?

Our options are: A God who always existed (Christianity) or infinite regression.

This is a false dichotomy. There are many options including other gods, a universe that always existed, or a universe born out of nothing.

No, God is by far the most parsimonious explanation and has not the slightest similarity to delusion, fakery, etc. It is a fundamental violation of science to claim that we should look for any other explanation than God. That is extremely bad logic.

Can you explain why this is 'extremely bad logic'? Postulating a god as the explanation for a particular phenomena is always going to be least parsimonious option because all other possible explanations require less power, knowledge, and abilities than a god.

if you demand this of theism, then naturalism, atheism and any rivals must meet the exact same standard in areas such as proving how life and the universe got started as well as the laws of science and more.

Yes I agree. Science also needs to produce verifiable manifestations of the phenomena it seeks to explain (otherwise people could just be making stuff up!) If we can't produce these manifestations then we have to say that we don't know the answer yet. That gods do not meet this common standard is not my problem.

Overall I think you are confusing benefits for evidence. If I invite some friends over and have a great time playing the latest rpg, that doesn't provide evidence for the existence of magic, dragons, or other scary monsters. Even if the religious are on average happier and healthier than the non-religious that does not demonstrate that one or more of those religions is true.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

And it wasn't God who created the problems in the first place... no?

Oh, of course... God's... TESTING us. And apparently you're failing.

As far as i remember, God wanted the humans to stay brainless tools running around naked in his super garden, which should still be somewhere on the Earth, guarded by some angels with fiery swords.. with some serpent swallowing dust on the ground or something along those lines.. however we were supposed to stay brainless creatures who can't even distinguish right from wrong.. and he was who created evilâ„¢ and the problems that we are suffering along with the atrocities that are personally pleasing him like rivers of blood and burnt sacrifices and mountains of dead people and ravaged virgins etc.. well at least according to the "word of god".

Yeah... it will certainly be a lot to read, even though he's not actually planning on saying anything of value.

Don't say that.. he certainly is PLANNING to do so, the problem is.. I bet there won't be anything that we didn't already hear/see at least dozens of times and more important, didn't dismiss already because it is bullshit.. believers who try to convince others of course fail to realize that, they sure think that the songs, links with pseudo science and hours of empty talk and appeal to emotion (mainly cosequences, fear, ridicule along with a straw men army, wishful thinking) etc are convincing, because they sound logical to them and feed their confirmation bias, but for somebody who isn't a victim of the religious virus already, they usually don't prove anything they were supposed to. (but why am i telling you that? :mrgreen: I am sure you are well aware of that.)

Well honestly, I hope I am wrong about his evidence and that he will surprise me, I still have hope to see something worth considering for at least a minute, who knows.. been waiting for 30 years now :geek:

My point however is, it is extremely difficult to show them that they are wrong, if not impossible. Old beliefs die hard even when they are demonstrably wrong, especially when you get them implanted as a child by authority figures who your life depends on and who provide the basis for your knowledge (aka parents), they and (often) your whole environment spoon feeds you God and their belief as soon as you start talking, it is the nature of our "psychology of belief"
Somebody (can't remember where i got this one) applied it in short form to religion:

Why do you think we have suicide bombers? What on Earth possesses them to think that there's seventy two virgins waiting for them in paradise? What possesses them is something called The Psychology of Belief. And they don't think, that's just it. This thing is far more powerful and far more prevalent than you know. There's a whole spectrum of belief out there. Think about Young Earth Creationists and their Intelligent Design friends. You can talk to these people until you're blue in the face, but they're totally immune to logic because they believe that they're right. You can say anything and everything, but they duck and dive and dismiss every last scrap of evidence you throw at them. Everything you say goes whoosh, in one ear and out the other. They just aren't listening. They just aren't thinking. The weird thing is that they don't know they're immune to logic. These guys aren't lying to you. They don't have a rational open mind, but they don't know it. They think they're being perfectly rational, and you're just some crazy fool who just doesn't know.

Also neurotheology showed us that the neural connections in your brain develop/grow to support and keep alive the values/beliefs that you got drummed in over a long period of time especially as a child, even more central ones like well... "God".
Sure that and trusting religious authorities makes it difficult to dismiss such beliefs or let anything even remotely scratch on them, including hard facts. A huge share of believers rejects or even demonises science (and reality?) when it contradicts their belief.
Of course many of them like science, they need science, but if it threatens their imaginary friend - to hell with it! :lol:
The page where i got the following quote is talking about some polls and studies i found a while ago, i will check my favorites to try to find it.

Discovermagazine[/url]"]
How can Americans say that they respect science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs.

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory...

He was talking about a study from pew research among others, about evolution, homosexuality and global warming and opinions among american Christians.
Short version in the pew forum

Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes(pdf)

Much worse in Islam:

Wikiislam statistics[/url]"]
Evolution:

More than 90 percent of Muslims worldwide reject the science of evolution.
Only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true.
Prof. Dawkins says Islamic influence a likely explanation for the growing popularity of creationist beliefs in the UK
(read more)

Homosexuality:

Homosexual relationships, acts or behavior illegal in 36 Islamic countries. 10 impose the death penalty for homosexuals.
Two thirds of all reported incidents of anti-gay violence in Amsterdam are by Muslim youths.
A 2009 Gallup survey could not find a single UK Muslim who approved of homosexuality.
(read more)

I hope it is unnecessary to waste time talking about sexual preference not being a personal choice.. not that other people's private matters are any of their business anyway, but it is scientifically proven and shown in nature as well.. although i know that Bryan/TruthisLife7 would disagree because homosexuality isn't normal according to his belief, an abomination and actually punished by death... according to his belief source :roll: and it is not surprising that so many people won't take nature/animals as example because well.. people reject evolution because of their belief :facepalm:

I will skip other interesting polls and studies and stop babbling myself too, i spammed enough today, but very interesting could be Edge's version of "Childhood origins of adult resistance to science" originally written by Yale Psychologists, explaining why idiocy is being forced down children's throats and why people have troubles opening their eyes to reality.

In sum, the developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy.

I can only recommend checking the whole article
I'll just cut it off here and sum it up with few words, RELIGIONS SUCK and tend to turn people into infantile ignorants, to say the least, period.

 

[Laurens]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

There was a whole lot of rambling in that post TruthisLife7, but I still see no evidence for God.

The scientific evidence for God most certainly does hold up for God.

Do you have any links to the papers that show scientific evidence for God? I'd fucking love to see it.

 

[Inferno]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

There was a whole lot of rambling in that post TruthisLife7, but I still see no evidence for God.

The scientific evidence for God most certainly does hold up for God.

Do you have any links to the papers that show scientific evidence for God? I'd fucking love to see it.

I'd love it if we could keep all of that to the debate thread, otherwise what's the point of me doing that?

 

[AronRa]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I've listened to a lot of atheists, recently Aronra's "testimony" of becoming an atheist. If I only knew what he did and that was my only experience, it would be quite rational to become an atheist. I agree. I'd even say that his conversion from the blind faith/pseudo-Christianity he was in, might be positive for him. But, as we will see in the debate, compared to the alternatives Christianity has profound amounts of evidence in numerous areas (remember that it is crucial to compare hypotheses on the same question.

What verifiably accurate facts can you cite which are positively indicative of, and only concordant with -your brand of theism?

As evidence must be a set factual [objectively verifiable and indisputably accurate] conditions which are only concordant with one available option over any other, then I contend that no supernatural belief system has ever had any evidence to support it. If they did, theism still has no evidence to indicate a deity, and Christianity has never had any evidence to promote itself over Sikhism, Hinduism, or any other mutually-exclusive competing belief.

The burden of proof is simple. Christianity just has to provide more and better quality evidence than rival worldviews whether that be Hinduism, materialism, atheism, New Age or whatever.

By 'atheism', I assume you are not talking about Buddhism, Taosim, Druidism, Shaman, nor any other religion which is 'atheist' in that they do not necessarily require belief in gods. Instead I must assume that you mean something closer to empiracle rationalism, the rejection of faith-based beliefs as inherently dishonest. In which case, I have to wonder why you listed 'materialism' separate from atheism, and why you did not list Christianity along with Sikhism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism alongside Hinduism and 'New Age' as the faith-based belief systems.

In my investigation of many worldviews, I have found things to respect and admire in many worldviews, including atheism (which in some senses is for sure a worldview and some atheists are saying that it is, but naturalism or materialism is the view which atheists embrace which may be a worldview in more senses than atheism technically is), but I have yet to find any worldview that comes anywhere close to providing the evidence, contributing to the improvement of society, challenging the status quo and establishments and many other things as much as Christianity HAS done for many centuries already.

I contend that empirical rationalism is a philisophical perspective, but not a 'world' view. There is only what we can show to be evidently true, and what we can't, which would consequently be limited to unsupported conjecture.

 

[Laurens]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I'd love it if we could keep all of that to the debate thread, otherwise what's the point of me doing that?

Urm well I pretty sure no scientific papers proving God's existence are going to turn up, either here, or there. Don't worry :mrgreen:

 

[WarK]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I'd love it if we could keep all of that to the debate thread, otherwise what's the point of me doing that?

Urm well I pretty sure no scientific papers proving God's existence are going to turn up, either here, or there. Don't worry :mrgreen:

Keep the faith men, keep the faith :lol:

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I might read and dissect that whole thing later, but for now I'll pick one point. I don't evaluate evolution vs photosynthesis. I evaluate evolution vs the null hypothesis, non evolution.

I don't evaluate Christianity against Hinduism. I evaluate it against non-christianity. Or to be more accurate, I don't evaluate theism against anything other than the null hypothesis, non-theism. We just happen to call that atheism.

Pretty simple point.