Evidence that God is real

[iceaura]

So is that definition prescriptive or normative, iyho?

It's in the dictionary. That's what you asked for, in the course of dealing insults, apparently because you didn't realize what anybody with a dictionary would find when they looked.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So the readers of your posts can tell what you are talking about.

Google?

Nope. He presents no such evidence as you were asked to provide.

What was I asked to provide?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Point of order, again.

The topic at-hand is not atheism. Nor is it theism.

The topic is evidence of God.

 

[DaveC426913]

which is why they do not want to talk about God.

Let's talk about God.

Right here. Right now.

 

[iceaura]

Most atheistic people never did deny or reject a deity. The matter simply never came up in their lives.

You don’t even realise you’re doing it now.

Silly boy. Anything for insult - your agenda here.
Having had to deny or reject an imposed deity is something only a subset of atheists have in common.
And you have been so informed several times, here.

All atheist deny and reject God, unless they are ignorant.

Most have been and are ignorant, in this world - hence the multibilliondollar generations of "missionary" work by the most authoritarian of the monotheists, and the evangelical efforts of those unable to enlist the power of the State in their service.

But as soon as they make the decision to sing the evidence song, they enter into denial territory.

That would only begin after the presentation of some evidence.
So far, there's nothing to deny except personal disparagements from established liars.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Point of order, again.

The topic at-hand is not atheism. Nor is it theism.

The topic is evidence of God.

No. That is the title of the thread.

Jan.

 

[Musika]

It's in the dictionary.

Yes.
As mentioned, the poor man's philosophy and history book.

That's what you asked for, in the course of dealing insults, apparently because you didn't realize what anybody with a dictionary would find when they looked.

Its poor form to balk at philosophy and history now.
Paupers and pennies and pride.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. That is the title of the thread.

Let's talk about God.

Right here. Right now.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Let's talk about God.

Right here. Right now.

Go on then.

Jan

 

[DaveC426913]

Go on then.

Jan

Sure. I'm a visual guy. I learn by seeing things.

Do you have any evidence you can share, so I can see what it is we're talking about?

 

[iceaura]

"So the readers of your posts can tell what you are talking about."
Google?

No need - you are right here.

What was I asked to provide?

You use question marks to indicate dishonesty - an interesting trait you share with your fellow oA theists on these forums.
- - -

As mentioned, the poor man's philosophy and history book.

And your specific, explicit demand.
The rich man's philosophy and history library were also mentioned, of course - you will find the same language in them.

Its poor form to balk at philosophy and history now.
Paupers and pennies and pride.

So: Some evidence from you? No more balking?
Nope. Because you can't, see. And that's not why you're posting here anyway.

 

[Musika]

So: Some evidence from you? No more balking?
Nope. Because you can't, see. And that's not why you're posting here anyway.

As highlighted by your quirkiness around the word "if", responding to requests for clarifications is not your strong suit.
Repeating things you have already said with added tersenes and brevity doesn't assist your cause.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure. I'm a visual guy. I learn by seeing things.

Do you have any evidence you can share, so I can see what it is we're talking about?

Sure. Google William Craig Lane evidence for the existence of God, then get back to me.

jan.

 

[billvon]

The part where you showed a dictionary definition of the word God that uses the word supernatural in the description

I didn't say they used the word supernatural in the description. (But nice try!) I said that dictionaries defined God as supernatural (i.e. is above nature; not bound by it.) To refresh your memory:

"2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes"
"a. A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature"

Both definitions describing God as supernatural. At least for people who speak and understand English.

, or, if you were capable of doing the necessary intellectual leg work, a historical or philosophical precedent for the use of the word supernatural to describe God outside of atheism.

Those goalposts aren't moving, sorry. Maybe start praying that they do? I hear that always works, which is proof God exists.

See, right there? I actually posted a (potential) way you could prove God exists. Ironic that not a single theist can do it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No need - you are right here.

William Craig Lane is not much further away from here, and he explains it better that I.
So if you're sincere you do need to take a look.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, it doesn't.
Twisting - it's what you're here for.

So what do they state?

jan.

 

[iceaura]

William Craig Lane is not much further away from here, and he explains it better that I.

Google William Craig Lane evidence for the existence of God, then get back to me.

He provides no evidence that God is real, and explains nothing relevant to this thread.
That is the fourth time you have had the fact pointed out to you.
Sending people off to read reams of irrelevant crap by randomly selected web-denizens is a common evasion among your kind, but try to vary the names at least.

So what do they state?

You quoted them. Done.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure. Google William Craig Lane evidence for the existence of God, then get back to me..

So no. You have no evidence to share here.

Your best response is "Google it".

Is that how you came to God? By Googling it?

William Craig Lane is not much further away from here, and he explains it better that I.

Try.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Again this is too long, and repetitive.

As are your continuing evasions and attempts to distract from the topic, to which I was responding, along with your personal slights.

Since then, you've gone on to post several more posts. None of them address the thread topic. All of them consist mainly of slurs against atheists.

As you keep assuming God has to be presented for God to exist, and that evidence should exist separate to ourselves to show that God exists.

You seem terribly worried about my assumptions and what I might think if you were ever to post some evidence. Instead of fretting about what might happen, and thus avoiding, why don't you attempt to answer the question of the thread?

Why don’t you think Stan Lee drew from the Bible, or any othe scripture for that matter.

What's the relevance of this to the thread topic?

Look, Jan, if you think that Stan Lee is evidence for your God, by all means make your argument. If you have some other interest in him, start a new thread and we can discuss.

I’m not interested in making an argument.

Clearly.

Only the point that man is not capable of inventing God, and scripture.

How has this incapability been established?

Of course, if you're right, then you are exhibiting an example of something that could not exist without God, namely "scripture". Now, all you have to do is to back up your claim. Let's see how you go with that.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I’ve already posited Bill Craig’s arguments as decent evidence for Gods existence as presumably understood by atheists. Refute it when you’re ready.

There's nothing here to refute. You have yet to bring a single one of Bill Craig's "evidences" to the table.

As I said previously, you're just vaguely waving your hands in his direction. When pressed, you come up with a blank, post after post.

Maybe show us something that we apparently see yet deny.

That is for you to find out.

No. it's for you to present, if there is any such thing.

Do you believe that the world runs itself?

Is there any evidence that it doesn't? If so, present it.

Where have I stated there is no external evidence of God? Did I not say I accept Bill Craigs arguments as sufficient evidence for God.

"Arguments" can be based on all kinds of things. You say Bill Craig has evidence. If he has it, why can't you present it?

Why spend time writing them down when you can view them?

Where can we view them? Be specific. You ought to provide a brief summary, but you can link to more information if you think it is required.

Read them, you will realise his arguments presents the evidence.

I don't believe you. Present the evidence, please.