Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[DaveC426913]

Thank you for demonstrating the atheist mindset

It is your mindset too.
It is every person's mindset.

You don't believe in Leprechauns unless the Leprechaun-claimant shows you Leprechauns.
You don't believe in an even prime number greater than two because you have seen no convicing evidence of one.
You don't believe in flying to the Moon on gossamer wings unless the claimant shows you cis-lunar wings.
You don't believe in The Great Green Arkleseizure unless you are shown evidence of it.


That is the default state of all humans. Including you.

Atheists just have one more thing on that infinite list than you.

 

[Trek]

So that rules out the accusation that 'nothing' would convince me. The question now becomes 'Are there less theatrical things that might convine me' but that's a longer story.

You need to explain why you think that would be God. There cannot be any ambiguity

 

[Trek]

Exactly my point.

No its not
That only demonstrates what YOU think God is.

 

[Trek]

Well, not necessarily. They might not live where you are.
The ponit being you;re are not going to believe in them merey becaue I say so.

If they existed, someone would see them.
Otherwise for all intent and purpose they don’t exist.
Now even if I thought “well there is no evidence that they don’t exist, so I cannot definitively say they don’t exist. I just don’t know whether or not they exist (agnostic). They still don’t exist to me in reality.

 

[Trek]

Well I just did. So I guess you will be retracting the accusation of liar now, will you?

What makes that concoction a contender to be God?

 

[DaveC426913]

You need to explain why you think that would be God. There cannot be any ambiguity

No I don't.
You need to provide your evidence.

No its not
That only demonstrates what YOU think God is.

What do you think the Great Green Arkleseizure is? If you get it wrong, I get to call you all sorts of rotten names. There cannot be any ambiguity.

Or do you, just perhaps, think the onus is on me, to explain to you how you can see the GGA yourself?

 

[DaveC426913]

What makes that concoction a contender to be God?

Exactly what we're asking you.
What makes you think your idea of God is correct?

 

[Trek]

No sh*t Sherlock. As we have been asking since time immemorial, share this glorous evidence with us poor godless souls.

I have advise
Lift the veil
Stop pretending you are justified in your atheism.
This very thread is evidence that you know you are not.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have advise

Show us or stand as a charlatan.

Lift the veil

Stop pretending you are justified in your atheism.
This very thread is evidence that you know you are not.

Preach. Plug your ears. Say your mantra. Drown out the thinking.

 

[Trek]

Exactly what we're asking you.
What makes you think your idea of God is correct?

Stop deflecting and make a serious attempt to answer that question.
Lift the veil of atheism in truth and honesty, and see what happens.
Go look at some of your fellow atheists who lifted the veil.

 

[Trek]

Show us or stand as a charlatan.

lol!!

 

[Trek]

Preach. Plug your ears. Say your mantra. Drown out the thinking.

That is your atheism kicking in.
It’s not natural

 

[DaveC426913]

Stop deflecting and make a serious attempt to answer that question.
Lift the veil of atheism in truth and honesty, and see what happens.
Go look at some of your fellow atheists who lifted the veil.

I did address the question: It is of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife yet."

It is impossible for me to provide evidence for something I have no evidence for. That you ask, means you are having great trouble following logic.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is your atheism kicking in.
It’s not natural

This is called gaslighting. It is a logical fallacy, and is rejected outright. But if it helps you sleep at night...

It's really very simple.

You, as a believer in God, are here making a claim that he objectively exists, meaning - not just for you - but for us too.
You have the onus to present your evidence that this claim is true.
Until you do so, the case is not made.
It's as simple as that.

Everything else you say is an attempt to dodge that central issue.

Why do you not share this with us? Is it perhaps because it's not convincing?

 

[Trek]

No I don't.
You need to provide your evidence.

The evidence isn’t intellectual.
You have take steps toward it.
Go look at some former atheists testimony to get a glimpse of how they explain ther journey.
It is a living thing.
It changes you from the core.
You see life differently.
It’s not just one thing

 

[DaveC426913]

The evidence isn’t intellectual.
You have take steps toward it.

Ah. It's foggy and hand-wavey. Got it.

So it's not objective; it's subjective. You can't show it to me.

So how do you know it's not a hallucination? What makes you convinced it's objectively real - i.e outside your own head?

Go look at some former atheists testimony to get a glimpse of how they explain ther journey.

No, you are here, making the claim. They are not.

It is a living thing.
It changes you from the core.
You see life differently.
It’s not just one thing

Ah. So I have to be indoctrinated. Got it.

 

[Trek]

Ah. It's foggy and hand-wavey. Got it.

So it's not objective; it's subjective. You can't show it to me.

Well it’s not in the same category as “normal evidence’ for obvious reasons.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter that you prefer the murky glass. So you can continue convincing yourself your little intellect has triumphed

No, you are here, making the claim. They are not.

Sorry I thought you were interested in find real evidence for God.
But you’ve already given us your concoction, so no need to pursue. Hey!

Ah. So I have to be indoctrinated. Got it.

Your atheism is kicking in again.
Don’t worry about it.
You’re better of looking through the murky glass window.
Good night guys!

 

[DaveC426913]

So you can continue convincing yourself your little intellect has triumphed

Will do. Thanks for the nod.

Sorry I thought you were interested in find real evidence for God.

You were going to produce objective evidence, right? To be sure it's not just in your head?

Because, while you might be certain God exists for you; you cannot know he exists outside your head, can you?

I can certainly accept that God exists in your head (and in some other people's heads).
Can you? Or is it important for your claim that it be more broad than that?

 

[Trek]

You were going to produce objective evidence, right? To be sure it's not just in your head?

Had to come out of retirement for this one..
Why do you think that there is something outside of God?

What makes you think that only “objective evidence” is the only way for God to be considered real?

This what I mean about your dishonesty.
You’re asking for evidence of God, but you erect a straw man God, and decide this is the God you must give evidence for.
Your whole ideology is wrapped up in that small intellect. By small I don’t mean you are not smart and qualified in certain academic fields, but small in what you actually know, or have forgotten. And that goes for all of us.

 

[DaveC426913]

Had to come out of retirement for this one..

I knew you would.

Why do you think that there is something outside of God?

I said nothing about this. This follows from nothing I've said.

What makes you think that only “objective evidence” is the only way for God to be considered real?

I just ask how you know it's not just in your head. That's the point of objective evidence; without it, you can't be sure it's not just an active imagination or a hallucination.

.
You’re asking for evidence of God, but you erect a straw man God, and decide this is the God you must give evidence for.

Throw away my straw man god or whatever you think I'm doing.

Let's use yours.

You've been asked for evidence that it lives outside your head. Do you have any or not?

Why are you dodging?