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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can't Science be a religion?? if no why not?

Why would that be necessary or desirable?

 

[Trek]

Why would that be necessary or desirable?

Because people think science is the only way to gain knowledge.
People believe that the cell just came together by chance in some primordial goo.
People think that Darwinism is true.
People revere scientists that bow to the communist atheist way of thinking.
People celebrate Darwin day.
People regard going to the Galapagos as a plgrimage
There are quite a few ways we see science operating in a similar way to religions. But like a lot of religions, those who use science as their religion have it wrong imo.

As for why it is necessary or desirable…
I think you’re best place to explain that

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sweeping generalization. Try harder.

 

[Trek]

Sweeping generalization. Try harder.

Just like the sentiments in thread. No?

 

[DaveC426913]

I have posted my anwer Nothing can be proven outside of mathematics.

Bit of a dodge there. Despite the bold assertion of the title, nobody in conversation expects - let alone has asked for - 'proof'. What we have been asking for is evidence. Presumably that would be a lot easier for you.

But yes, you've answered that too.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just like the sentiments in thread. No?

Another one.

 

[Trek]

Bit of a dodge there. Despite the bold assertion of the title, nobody in conversation expects - let alone has asked for - 'proof'. What we have been asking for is evidence. Presumably that would be a lot easier for you.

But yes, you've answered that too.

The title of the thread literally asks for proof..
You can’t make this stuff up

I want to know what you mean by Gods
Based on this thread and ya’lls rhetoric, I have no clie what you mean by God.
It’s time you people came clean and explain what you actually want evidence of
and what evidenceyou are prepared to accept
to believe in God.

 

[gmilam]

I want to know what you mean by Gods
Based on this thread and ya’lls rhetoric, I have no clie what you mean by God.
It’s time you people came clean and explain what you actually want evidence of
and what evidenceyou are prepared to accept
to believe in God.

No, you're the believer. Tell us what you believe in. Just who is this god person?

 

[DaveC426913]

The title of the thread literally asks for proof..

So you're asserting that the thread topic (which is limited to 256 characters) determines exclusively what is valid discussion, despite the fact that countless posts have asked for evidence, rather than proof.

OK, let's roll with that.

I want to know what you mean by Gods
Based on this thread and ya’lls rhetoric, I have no clie what you mean by God.
It’s time you people came clean and explain what you actually want evidence of
and what evidenceyou are prepared to accept
to believe in God.

That is not the thread topic. In this thread you are in the answering position, not the asking position.

Please start a new thread. Therein you can define your own explicit conditions for your question. Word the topic carefully.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The title of the thread literally asks for proof..
You can’t make this stuff up

I want to know what you mean by Gods
Based on this thread and ya’lls rhetoric, I have no clie what you mean by God.
It’s time you people came clean and explain what you actually want evidence of
and what evidenceyou are prepared to accept
to believe in God.

You can make up any definition you want for "GOD", every believer does it.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Hi Trek... do you thank the God you believe in has a purpose.???

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have a monster that lives under my bed. You can't see it, I can't see it, but it's there, believe me!

 

[DaveC426913]

Or an invisible dragon in my garage.

Sagan eloquently put this logical fallacy to bed 20 years ago in The Demon-Haunted World. Here is an excerpt:

"... what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head."

http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/Sagan.pdf

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You have to take it on faith."

"You have to take it up the pooper."

 

[billvon]

Because people think science is the only way to gain knowledge.

Of course it's not. What an absurd strawman.

People believe that the cell just came together by chance in some primordial goo.

Well, no. Life started well before we had cells. So the cell evolved; it didn't come together "by chance."

People think that Darwinism is true.

It has been observed.

People revere scientists that bow to the communist atheist way of thinking.

Another one of your ridiculous strawmen. One might as well say that religious types bow to the Devil because he's supernatural, which makes the Devil the same as God.

People celebrate Darwin day.

Perhaps you do. I never have.

People regard going to the Galapagos as a plgrimage

Again, perhaps you do. But let's compare the number of people who go to the Galapagos on a pilgrimage to the people who go Mecca as a pilgrimage.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That was amazingly stupid. Pilgrimages? Celebrating someone birthday? Getting knowledge from some mystical source? Pot calls kettle rudely.

 

[DaveC426913]

As long as Trek is busy attacking these straw men he's propped up next to him, he's busy avoiding pointed questions put to him here.

 

[James R]

Trek:

What is you standard of evidence to decide whether or not God is real?

I don't know how to answer that question. I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you please list for me a few different "standards of evidence"? Then I'll tell you which one comes closest to my standard of evidence.

What's your "standard of evidence"?

Also, this seems like a very general question that doesn't require a reference to God. One's standard of evidence - whatever it is - ought to be consistent across all topics, don't you think? Otherwise, you're biased.

I don’t know what’s you mean by evidence of God. Do you think God is entirely separate from his creation?

I don't know what your particular religious belief is, on that. Are you a Christian? If so, then I imagine your views are aligned with those of most Christians, who say things like "God created the universe". If true, that would imply that God is separate from his creation, because there was a state of affairs in which God existed but his creation did not. What's your view on this?

I find it strange that you now say you don't know what I might mean by evidence of God. What kinds of things do you consider to be evidence for the existence of something? For example, what would you consider to be evidence that tomatoes exist, or the Pacific Ocean, say? I imagine that what I mean by evidence won't differ greatly from what you mean by evidence, for those things.

Is God different?

I think you said you have no evidence for God. Is that correct?

Would you believe in tomatoes without having any evidence for their existence? Is the situation different when it comes to God?

There are evidenced for God just do a google search, but you’re not interested.

I didn't say I'm not interested. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

What are your top three evidences for God? Dot points are fine.

So I want to know what are you talking about when you say “God”.

I'm talking about the God you believe in. Is there any evidence that it is real?

How do you know there is no evidence for God?

I don't. I've been hoping you can show me some evidence. But it seems you can't. Is that right?

I have posted my anwer Nothing can be proven outside of mathematics.

You understand that most of us here are not asking for anything like a mathematical proof of God (though, if you have one, I'm all ears). We are asking if there's any evidence for it.

Do you know of any? You sort of keep flip-flopping back and forth on that, as far as I can tell. You started off saying there is evidence, then you said you couldn't provide any evidence. Then, just now, you said there's evidence on the internet, but you haven't managed to bring any of it here, so far. So which is it? Evidence, or no evidence? If there's evidence, why won't you say what it is? Is it secret?

Also any and everything can be fictionalised. So what’s the point of the thread?

Do you believe God is just a fiction? I get the impression you don't believe that. If it's not a fiction, then can you tell me why you believe in it? It's not for the story-telling aspect, clearly. Then what?

I thought this site was against trolling

I agree that the thread title is very "in your face", but most of us here are not demanding "proof", as I hope you've gathered by now.

Do you think it's somehow unreasonable or unfair to ask for evidence of your God?

Again with the Jan thing!

I just keep noticing resemblances. It's almost uncanny.

Like I said, you can probably save yourself (and me) some time by reviewing those old Jan Ardena threads. Then you and I can have a more productive discussion where we don't have to go over Jan's many old mistakes.

Have you noticed the poor arguments which uncannily resemble each other out of the atheist camp.

Yeah, there were some of those, of course. Jan was here for years. You can concentrate on my arguments if you prefer, since they were mostly pretty good ones.

Just focus on me not this Jan Arden’s.

Okay, but it's hard not to draw parallels, since the two of you apparently share a rather singular mindset when it comes to God. I suppose we might discover divergences as we continue to converse.

We’ll agree to disagree

As you wish. Then we won't need to repeat our respective claims on this particular matter. That will save us both some time and effort. Good.

 

[James R]

Trek:

Sorry to hear about that.
It must have been traumatic

Actually, not at all. It wasn't exactly what I would call subtle indoctrination, but there wasn't any trauma. My parents were well intentioned. I imagine that most of the religious leaders who were involved were also well intentioned, though unfortunately they were also wrong about a lot of things.

Children with kind parents usually trust that they are right about most things, most of the time. It's how a lot of us learn about our world when we are young. Sometimes, it's only when we're older and wiser that we learn that adults can be wrong about stuff, even when they are sincere.

A lot makes sense now

Lest you got the wrong impression, it wasn't only what I was taught in church. I had the feelings of God in my heart, just like you do. Only after I was taught about the idea of God, of course.

I get why you’re so messed up now

Thanks for your kind concern, but I'm not messed up. Please don't make assumptions. It's rude to do that sort of thing. If you want to know, ask first. Probably you just didn't realise you were being rude, there. Right?

How could you?
You were traumatised

No. I just wasn't aware of some things that I learned later. There was no trauma involved, I assure you. You don't have to feel sorry for me, but I appreciate your thoughtful sentiments, of course.

Good for you matey.
A lot of people don’t get that opportunity

Too right! That's why I like to offer the opportunity to other people. I'm very grateful I had it and I like to give back.

You don’t get to realise God by being traumatised.

I'd say there are quite a lot of counter-examples to your thesis.

I’m glad you came out of that

Thanks again for your kind concern for my welfare. Certainly, I have benefitted immeasurably from being "out of that".

You shouldn’t have been convinced at all.
The kingdom of God lies within, not without.
You can’t be convinced of God, but you can be inspired

I had all that, too. I felt God within me. I was inspired, to some degree. It's quite common.

Yours wasn’t.
That we can know for sure

Well, you've already been wrong about the trauma. So how can you know for sure? You're not just making assumptions, are you? Explain your reasoning.

Did you move “God” or the notions of God you had been traumatised by?

I became unconvinced that God is real. No need to overcomplicate things, Trek.

Unfortunately James I don’t think your camp is sensible. This terrible thread and the lack of enthusiasm to breakdown what the real meaning behind posting it, is a classic example of derangement when it comes to the topic of God.

Derangement? Please explain.

Are you suggesting that atheists are mentally ill? How did you reach that conclusion?

Or are you just trying to say something specific about the title of this thread? If so, what is it?

There is a lot to understand about God. Much more than you will learn in an institution that indoctrinated children.

Did you learn about God in an institution, Trek, or are you self-taught? Or did God teach you directly?

Evidence is always related to the subject. If you want evidence of unicorns then you have to see unicorns. But with God that is not the case.

That sounds straightforward. If I want evidence of electrons, I don't have to see electrons. In fact, I can't see electrons. They have to be inferred from indirect evidence.

Is this what you're saying about God? That there's indirect evidence sufficient to establish God's existence? What's the evidence?

So you have to know something prior to acceptance of evidence.

You're not advocating that one approaches purported evidence with a mindset of confirmation bias, I hope (?)

This is why I want to know what you are expecting when it come to evidence of God.

I don't have any specific expectations. What are you offering?

What do you think God is, and what type of evidence would you accept?

Try me. What evidence do you have? I'll let you know whether I will accept it. I will give you my reasons. That should make for a more useful conversation than this current abstract one you seem to be stuck on, wouldn't you say? Let's get into some specifics.

 

[James R]

Common sense will do that, because the obvious in this case, is the foundation

I view most people, including myself as being unclean in the moral sense.
Why do you ask?

Just interested. It's common for religious people to have a heightened sense of what is "unclean", which then tends to be equated with "unholy".

It’s not about them being right or wrong. It’s about what you do as an individual.

No. What your religious leaders told you is not about me as an individual. It's about them. Beware of getting muddled around. Their words are their words; they don't get to shift the blame onto somebody else.

It’s no different to any other pursuit that requires discipline to achieve greater success.
Theism and atheism are simple labels. There’s a whole lot more happening beneath the surface

Right. One shouldn't stereotype or make assumptions that might be unwarranted.

I don’t mind going into all of that, but I have been asking question for a few days now and have not received any intelligent responses. I would like some intelligent responses please

That sounds like an insult. Have I not responded intelligently?

Which hard questions would those be?

Things like: "Why can't I come up with any evidence for God that I'm willing to stand behind?", "Why does God allow evil?", "How do I know that God is real and not just in my head?", "How do I know that the 'connection' I feel with God is real?"

It seems to be you guys who are running from questions…

Like what?

What is your understanding God?

I don't believe in any gods.

I understand that by "God", many people mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the universe.

What's your understanding of God?

What evidence specifically would convince you God was real?

Try me. What evidence have you got?

I think it is time you people answered these questions.

Done. Your turn.

Dave has already made reference to winning and losing.
Is that all you folks are about?

I'm sorry. Which "folks" are you lumping me in with, Trek?

I don't see atheism vs theism as a competition, if that's what you're trying to ask me, albeit in a rather clumsy way.

That’s what make it convincing.
Nevertheless you can learn from them.

Who do you suggest I learn from, specifically?

That direction is easy to fall into.

Apparently not, especially for Americans, who mostly say they believe in gods.

You should check out former atheist testimonies. Especially the atheists like you people who are in string denial of God.

You're putting the cart before the horse there, Trek. You haven't convinced me there is any God I should be chastised for denying, yet.

If I knew there was a God and yet went around saying there is no God, then you might have a valid point about my being "in strong denial". But the fact is: I haven't told you there is no God. Nor am I aware of any God whose existence I might choose to deny.

You said you had some evidence, didn't you? Are you going to get around to presenting it, or are you just going to whine about how atheists are all in denial etc.? Shouldn't you be spreading the Good News rather than complaining about wrong-think?

At least you’ll learn how far removed you currently are from the concept of God.
Maybe you’ll ask better questions and create better threads.

I didn't create this thread. If you want to search the archives, I created a few good ones about God in the past, though. They make for an interesting and informative read, I assure you.

You’ll have to put up some quotes so we can discuss them.

I thought you said you didn't want to talk about Jan. He's no longer here, anyway, and in any case he was very stuck. Also, it became very clear in the end that he wasn't honest, either with himself or with other people. So, not somebody that honest people like you and I ought to waste more time worrying about, I think. Agree?

Jan obviously had an impact on this site as everybody seems to bring him up a lot

It's okay. We needn't mention him again. Forget him. He's irrelevant to our dialogue. Right?