Sarkus,
Why? Because we are psychologically and physiologically capable of it.
Is there any evidence that people have stayed in love for the whole of their lives (from the first moment they fell in love)? Or are you guessing, based on what you think our capabilities are?
In what way is "Originator of all" not specific enough?
The originator of what? Chocolate marshmallows?
Yes, one must look for evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads to "God" rather than be merely an observation that fits every theory under consideration.
First one has to stop pretending that ‘’God’’ means anything one wishes it to, and accept what is meant when theists speak of God (be it the biblical, quranic, or vedic text or religions).
Then you will have a better idea of how to sought after evidence.
It would need to be something that can not possibly be evidence that fits any alternative possibility, that can only possibly lead to the conclusion of "God", or at least such that any alternative notion that it does fit fails Occam's razor compared to "God".
The manifestation of the material world is an ideal evidence, unless you think matter can create itself, or the universe just popped out of nothing, and nowhere, into existence.
Which do you think is more plausible (given that we know intelligent minds create)?
How? You have to accept that they are correct, and you have to do so in the same manner that you accept God exists - i.e. without any support whatsoever. Whether you accept the scriptures or not makes them no different in this regard, no better supported. There is no grounds to take them further than acceptance.
Afterall, I could accept with the same level of support that my lawn is blue.
Every person I know, past a certain age, has the ability to accept something without believing it is true, and they use that discrimination all the time.
It is how we are able to comprehend, understand, and enjoy movies, books, comedy, social interactions, and so on.
The support comes from comprehension, and understanding.
You could accept your lawn is blue, or you may watch a movie in which the lawns suddenly turn blue, and accept that as part of the plot. But you know it is green, because you experience, and your knowledge has concluded that it is green.
It does no such thing. If anything it merely shows how the analogy is equally valid to the scriptures and essential religion in so as much as they refer to God.
The point is, it does not refer to God. It refers to a strawman.
But it is evidence of every theory that it fits, even competing theories (and I of course use the term theory unscientifically).
You have to start from somewhere. As you said, evidence must be something that cannot be explained by natural means.
The perspective of needing to be fallacious to make it meaningful?
You’re the ones accusing me of circular reasoning, and a baseless accusation at that. How is it possible to believe something, so that you may believe that thing? A question you have not answered properly.
By saying that everything is evidence, you are including everything that is material, and yet you say it is somehow wrong to look at the material aspect??
Firsty, the logical conclusion, if God exists, is that everything is evidence. Do you or do you not agree?
Other than that criticism, I simply can't see how any of your conclusions flow from the "logic" you claim.
It does if you accept the God as the supreme original being, from whom/what comes everything. In the same way you accept the main character in Superman. It doesn’t mean you have to believe it, but at the very least it makes sense.
Not really: it has always been, for me at least, at rather a high level - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" etc.
Who says it’s extraordinary? We have ample evidence of what the finite mind can achieve, so what could a mind like God’s achieve?
It’s only extraordinary because we deem it so. Anything that accounts for the origin of the material manifestation, can arguably be deemed extraordinary, but some extraordinary thing(s) must be right.
My point is not that one can choose, but that if one is not in the cycle of believing to believe then one will not believe until some threshold is reached.
Again, believing some to be real, in order to believe that that thing is a nonsense, and that is not what I’m saying.
It is possible to accept something, and suspend belief, and that is what I’m talking about. So please wasting time.
Please show me, logically, how it is possible to believe in God and yet not believe.
I’ve shown you how we can logically accept God, and all His characteristics without believing in Him.
I don't fully comprehend your point, that much is obvious, and if you want me to understand then I would think the onus is on you to explain.
I’ve explained it to you enough times. The lack of comprehension is clearly down to you.
I have tried to point out the areas of contradiction I have noted, of confusion in your replies, and where I simply disagree.
And I keep telling you they’re not contradictions, through explanation, but you still accuse.
It works. Period. Whether we deem it silly or not. It is meant to explain precisely and clearly (through exaggeration / comparison to the absurd) why some atheists do not believe in God. It is not meant to work in any other way.
As an explanatory analogy it works.
It doesn’t address God, it addresses a contrived notion of God, by equating God to known childish or silly characters.
IOW, somebody could come away thinking that I don’t believe in God, because, like invisible trains that live on a planet occupied by invisible trains, I can find no evidence of Him/It.
It says nothing about God.
Because whatever their notion of God, the use of the analogy by them tells me that they have no evidence of that notion.
And if their notion of God is some object like, invisible flying Christmas trees, then they’re hardly likely to find any evidence. So why bother? Unless of course they come to their senses like their one time like-minded brother, Anthony Flew.
Jan.
