To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

God is making the claims (and an invitation). He has indeed come out of hiding and shown Himself...He has presented evidence: His Son, Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, you will. God promises this.
Further evidence would be the change that you yourself would undergo...this would be observable and tangible to yourself and others who know you personally...i.e.what's with him? He used to be so antagonistic or indifferent about Jesus and God, now he speaks of both to everyone he knows...and his behaviors and language have changed...he used to be etc.

No god has made any claims to me. YOU are the 1 writing your posts. YOU are making unsupportable claims. You don't even try to support them, you simply go on&on&on&on&on making unsupported claims. No god has sent me any invitation or presented any evidence. No god has shown itself. I cannot want to know something I do not know exists & neither can you. A figment from your fantasy cannot promise anything. I cannot be antagonistic to something I do not know exists. You do not know whether or how I would change. My behavior & language do not need to be changed. Yours does.
Your god either is not omnipotent or wants many of us to not know or it does not exist. Period. End of fantasy.

 

[Jan Ardena]

StrangerInAStrangeLa,

God is a silly childish contrived notion.

Which is why the absurd explanations appeal to you.

You are hardly likely to find any evidence. You certainly aren't presenting any. It's possible you will come to your senses someday.

There’s lots of evidence, you only need to type into google ‘’Is there evidence of God’’, or words to that effect. Anthony Flew, one of the architects of modern atheism, had to cave under the weight of evidence, and come to his senses. Even though it must have been very difficult for him, he tried to reach out to you, and your zero concept ideology.


Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Iceaura,

You are the most rigid denier here of what other theists mean when they speak of God.

No I’m not.

Atheists debating theists have to accept the various theistic at their word, just as they have to - and do - accept your version.

Bullcrap. You don’t accept anything about theists, unless how they act, or what they say, somehow give you the impression that you can use it to defeat the notion of God. None of you are interested in learning anything positive about God (you don’t mind the misunderstandings though). Look at the caption under all my posts.


Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Firsty, the logical conclusion, if God exists, is that everything is evidence. Do you or do you not agree?

Even this isn't "true". "God" could exist without anything being "evidence".

From your perspective that may well be the case.

Also, has anyone given any thought as to what the mechanism could be to enable a "spirit" not of the material world to affect the material world?

The will.

Gravity isn't even strong enough to keep the glass in my hand from falling to the floor. It's the whole mass of the Earth against my mass and I'm able to keep the glass in my hand (let's stick with Newtonian physics just to stay on point).

It is your will that keeps the glass in your hand from falling to the floor. And it is your will, that will decide to break it.

So, there is a disembodied "spirit" that is able to "move mountains". How would this possibly be accomplished other than the cop out response of "God can do anything".

You’re looking at it from your perspective, and the mountain looks absolutely massive, and unmovable. In CGI, they can make an ant look like a mountain compared to a man, and we call that special effects. To God there is no size, everything is energy which He transforms as He likes.

How does one come to the conclusion that God can do anything? Even if you think that nothing can occur without "design" because that's so logical to you. How is it so logical that there could be a spirit who can know everything and do everything in the material world?

The question is ‘’What is everything’’ and ‘’What is anything’? The second question is ‘’What is God‘’ and ‘’Who is God’’??

You would think that even if we weren't able to devise a test to prove or disprove the existence of God you would think we could scale things back a bit and prove the existence of some sort of spirits in our everyday life.

Consciousness, is awareness, and is available in all living beings. Consciousness is the symptom of spirit, so you, I, and every other living being prove the existence of spirit.

If there is a world where spirits exist then the palm readers, psychics, etc. should be able to ply their craft legitimately. We should be able to set up a scientifically valid test to affirm or reject the hypothesis. That hasn't successfully happened either.

Mainstream science is not going to accept God, therefore God will never exist if you’re waiting for proclamations. It’s already been affirmed “…Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ".


Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

StrangerInAStrangeLa,
Which is why the absurd explanations appeal to you.

Stop lying.

There’s lots of evidence, you only need to type into google ‘’Is there evidence of God’’, or words to that effect. Anthony Flew, one of the architects of modern atheism, had to cave under the weight of evidence, and come to his senses. Even though it must have been very difficult for him, he tried to reach out to you, and your zero concept ideology.
Jan.

Bullshit. You make claims, you present evidence. Stop playing childish games.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

If the word 'God' is defined in such a way that any imaginable state of affairs is consistent with God's existence, then any imaginable state of affairs would be consistent with the existence of a 'God' defined in that way. That's true by definition and it doesn't tell us anything interesting or useful.

If God is defined as; The Cause of all Causes, The Supreme Being, The Almighty, then how is that not interesting or useful? At the very least it gives an idea as to what evidence one should or shouldn’t accept as existence of God.

What could possibly explain the existence of absolutely everything without begging the question or circularity?

Yet everything exists, and there must be an explanation. That explanation can be categorised into two camps, a natural explanation, and a supernatural explanation. The natural explanation is logically inconsistent, as things do not create themselves. God, being pure spirit, never coming into, or going out of being, is a much more logically consistent. Each proposal is equally fantastic from the point of view of ignorance, yet what other explanations are there.

The logical inconsistency occurs when we try to fit round pegs into square holes, then try to explain that it might fit, but we have to wait until further experiment to work out how to give a better explanation.
Trying to explain our origins, and the origin of the material world, through material means, is illogical.

At the other end of the spectrum of 'God' definitions are the anthropomorphic divine persons revealed in various religious traditions and scriptures. There's Yahweh blustering on his mountaintop in Sinai while Moses is afraid to even look, there's Allah revealing his strangely medieval and tribal social order to Mohammed in a cave near Mecca, there's Krishna appearing as chariot driver to Arjuna on the eve of battle, and there's Jesus dying on the cross and rising again from the grave. Obviously we can't say that everything that exists constitutes evidence for the actual existence of the divine protagonist in any particular one of these traditional stories.

These stories/pastimes aren’t performed to prove God exists.
God exist. Period. That is the starting point.

They are performed to signify the end of on age into another, and re-establish the principles of religion in that age.

It's interesting how many theists move back and forth at will from God as abstract metaphysical function to God as a particular divine person, without acknowledging that these are very different kinds of ideas, and while simply assuming that philosophical arguments for the first kind of concept must somehow also be arguments for the second.

These are different aspects of God (Personal, Impersonal, God in the heart, etc…). All religions are based on some aspect of God, even Buddhism. Atheism is also in relation to God.


Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Stop lying.




Bullshit. You make claims, you present evidence. Stop playing childish games.

If you're not prepared to even consider other evidences, and I'm saying look at those evidences for clarification, why would I bother to waste my time?

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If you're not prepared to even consider other evidences, and I'm saying look at those evidences for clarification, why would I bother to waste my time?

jan.

You are not presenting any evidence to consider.
I have no need to prepare for anything. I didn't ask you to make silly childish claims.
WHY do you waste your time???

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are not presenting any evidence to consider.
WHY do you waste your time???

I have told to you how to find evidence. There must be evidence, the atheist architect Anthony Flew said so. If you're really interested, go figure, then get back to me.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I have told to you how to find evidence. There must be evidence, the atheist architect Anthony Flew said so. If you're really interested, go figure, then get back to me.

jan.

You have not told me how to do anything. I am not trying to find evidence, I have no need for it. You need evidence to back up your claims. When you have some, you get back to me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

StrangerInAStrangeLa,

I am not trying to find evidence, I have no need for it.

This sums up the modern atheist position, tactic, and agenda.
Thanks for sharing

You need evidence to back up your claims. When you have some, you get back to me.

What has been my claim?
Are you even comprehending what I write?

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

StrangerInAStrangeLa,
This sums up the modern atheist position, tactic, and agenda.
Thanks for sharing

What has been my claim?
Are you even comprehending what I write?

jan.

Unfortunately, that does not sum up your bullshit.
You don't comprehend what you write. Or you're pretending.

 

[Sarkus]

Yet being in love is so common place, and accepted as something that is real, despite no evidence of it’s existence, unless one has the experiences, and even then it cannot be proven.

It is accepted as "real" in as much as any emotion is "real" - i.e. it is a pattern of physiological changes within the body accompanied by a pattern of behaviour... and can be evidenced accordingly.
The flaw with your argument is that you are relying on the definition of "love" being so vague as to avoid having it pinned down to allow for testing.
Once you actually define it - however you do so - it either becomes possible to test or it is defined to be unscientific.

It could mean “all” the chocolate marshmallows in South Dakota.

If I had meant that I would have typed that. Do you understand the usage of "all" as a noun?

It doesn’t cut it in a discussion. I’m still non-the-wiser to what you mean by God.

It does cut it if your intention is to have a sensible discussion. If I'm actively looking for evidence, I must be able to define what I think that evidence is for, irrespective of what anyone else might think it is evidence for. We can then argue whether that which is defined is irrelevant, meaningless, illogical, irrational, worthy of belief etc.

Who decides what is warranted or not?

It is the nature of the difference between sound and valid in a logical argument: if you can not make a valid argument into a sound one without accepting a premise as true despite its veracity being in question, the accepting of it as true is unwarranted with regard the argument being made.

We have no choice but to assume how the matter manifested into this phenomenal world (especially if you assume it had a beginning), So why not God, as opposed to the illogical, nonsensical notion that nature brought itself into being?

Given that there is no evidence for God that does not rely on the assumption of God's existence (i.e. God exists therefore everything is evidence of God), yours would be an argument from personal incredulity rather than one I would consider rational or actually logical.
"So why not God?" is to answer a question for which we can't even say if there is an answer for us to know. It is just jumping on a conclusion that satisfies the need for an answer. Your very question in this regard fuels the notion that you are simply unable to accept "I don't know" as the conclusion.

You might want to not be seen to make assumptions, but inside you have already made your choice, and that is decided in how you choose to live, and express your life.

IOW, no one can live without these built in assumptions, which change as you become more experienced in life, and that

We build in assumptions for a practical reason without necessarily believing them as true without evidence. That is the difference.

There is never going to be evidence to the contrary of God, and there is never going to be one thing that makes everybody, comprehend, understand, or believe God exists, in one sweep. And it’s quite silly to think that such evidence will arise, unless of course you stick to the idea, justifying to yourself that God does not exist, or that I can believe in God when I’m ready. It’s the kind of mentality that equates God to invisible chocolate space ships....

There is no equating of God to anything, and your argument is simply insulting.

Why accept as true that humans have the ability to fall in love for the whole of their lives? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim

Yes: my parents.
But I will refer you to my response earlier in this post, and request that you first define "love" to make this line of discussion more meaningful and relevant, and so that I can provide more accurate responses.

The subject matter is all important here. God. Once you accept that God is God, then you are in a much better position to decide what evidence will convince you of His existence, and whether or not you believe in Him.

I accept that God is God. It is a tautological truism. A logical truth. It is no different than accepting that you are you, that I am me, that a chair is a chair.
It makes no difference to my position regarding evidence.

You’re back to the teapot, because for all intent and purpose, that invisible teapot is no different to God.

With regard the sole issue of evidence, yes. It is you who then wants to widen the claim of the analogy beyond where how it is used, and then argue that this wider context is an issue for you. Ever heard of a strawman?

You’re the one who has decided that there is no evidence, and you made that decision through accepting that God does not exist, or defaulted through a poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject. But it is not logical conclusion.

It is an entirely logical conclusion: I have no knowledge of God that can be unambiguously and rationally attributed to God rather than the work of Man. I thus have nothing on which to base the interpretation of evidence to conclude that God exists. I thus can not claim to have any evidence that leads rationally and unambiguoulsy to me concluding that God exists.
Please spot the logical flaw?

 

[Sarkus]

Nope. The atheist perspective is moot, simply because the atheist does not know what he/she talking about when it comes to the subject. Hence silly, absurd explanations.

The athiest (or at least those who are so due to a claimed lack of evidence) perspective on the issue is all it needs to be: the atheist has a lack of evidence.
It may be that they actually do have what you interpret as evidence, but only actual belief in God will enable one to interpret it as such. Hence the cyclical nature of your position.
Or it may be that there is evidence that we can all interpret as God without first believing in Him, but you have yet to point any out, or to highlight any. Nor, to that point, has anyone else. Ever.

“All” of what?

Again, what is the issue you have with the word "all"? Do you not understand what it means when used as a noun?

Why do I require that? It makes no difference to me whether or not people believe in, or accept God. Another misconception, and tell-tale sign of atheism, and a poor fund of knowledge of the subject. You think that the theist has to prove God, to you.

Not at all, you simply misunderstood my comment. You have continually asked me what evidence I am looking for, and even for my concept of God etc. Yet what you are actually requiring in this discussion is that I accept your definition of God, that the evidence I look for should be evidence of your God.
I know you couldn't care less if I believe or not, and I never said you did. But in this discussion you are requiring that everything is referenced to your concept of God. Understand now?

It either began, it didn’t, and you’re right it is more plausible that it began (putting it mildly), but I don’t see what that has to do with my point. There you go with the “unwarranted assumption” accusation again. When dealing with the origin of the material manifestation, there is nothing but assumption from ignorance.

Or we conclude "we don't know" - and thus avoid the need for such unwarranted assumptions.
What we accept (but not necessarily believe as true) from a practical point of view can be based on what we hold as rational, given the evidence at hand (and we should not attribute evidence to anything that can only be done so with unwarranted assumptions).

That description is like house made of playing cards, when we discuss the notion of God.

Eh?? You asked "Firsty, the logical conclusion, if God exists, is that everything is evidence. Do you or do you not agree?"
My response is that your statement is a truism.
So I don't see how your comment above is in any way relevant, or even to what you think it relates to.

I don’t know of anything in this material world, that was not caused by something, so I cannot even imagine that anything could exist without a cause, and as God is defined as The Supreme Cause, and One without a Second.

Argument from personal incredulity.
It is the common approach to judge that which leads to the creation of our universe (if it indeed was created) by the internal machinations of our universe that only exist once created.
If you stop doing that (because, guess what, it is an unwarranted assumption to do so) then you will likely conclude "I don't know what caused the universe".
But I can see from your previous arguments that you're not content with such positions, and would rather fill it with that which makes you warm and cosey.

I’m not claiming, or even trying to convince you everything IS evidence. It simply stands to reason that if God exists, then everything is evidence of His existence. Right?

As already explained, this is a truism.
Likewise, if God does not exist then everything is evidence of Him not needing to exist. Right? This is also a truism.
Neither say anything meaningful other than everything is neither evidence for nor against the existence of God.

No I’m not. But why would the evidence be extraordinary?

The evidence would need to be extraordinary, because the claim of God's existence is also extraordinary. If it is merely ordinary (such as "everything is evidence of God") then it will be possible to show how it is also "evidence" of God not existing.
Thus you need something rather extraordinary, something that can not possibly be used as evidence that God need not exist... i.e. something that can rationally and unambiguously only lead to the conclusion "God exists". That is what would be extraordinary.

You mean like the evidence which supports the knowledge that humans have the ability to be in love for the whole of their life?

No.

You’re being dishonest now, and it’s becoming tedious.

You claim dishonesty so please show it. I have laid out my arguments for all to see, so where am I being dishonest.
Further you claim I'm being dishonest "now", and it is "becoming tedious"? Either your tolerance is absurdly low or you have evidence to support what must amount to on-going dishonesty?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

It is accepted as "real" in as much as any emotion is "real" - i.e. it is a pattern of physiological changes within the body accompanied by a pattern of behaviour... and can be evidenced accordingly.

I agree that it’s accepted as real, because some people have experienced it, but I don’t agree it’s just an emotion like happy, or angry, and I don’t believe it can be known, or evidenced through patterns of behaviour.

The flaw with your argument is that you are relying on the definition of "love" being so vague as to avoid having it pinned down to allow for testing.

I’m not relying on anything, and it doesn’t need to be tested. It is what it is.

Once you actually define it - however you do so - it either becomes possible to test or it is defined to be unscientific.

The reality is, itdoesn’t matter if it is defined or not, and science has no business in deciding what love is. It is outside of all of that.

It could mean “all” the chocolate marshmallows in South Dakota.

If I had meant that I would have typed that. Do you understand the usage of "all" as a noun?

I shouldn’t have to go to all that trouble to understand what you mean. Why don’t you just explain the same thing but in a less ambiguous way?


All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

It does cut it if your intention is to have a sensible discussion. If I'm actively looking for evidence, I must be able to define what I think that evidence is for, irrespective of what anyone else might think it is evidence for. We can then argue whether that which is defined is irrelevant, meaningless, illogical, irrational, worthy of belief etc.

It basically sounds like you thought you’d just throw any definition in the pot.
Now I’m asking you to elaborate on it, you back off, because it means you have to give it some thought.

It is the nature of the difference between sound and valid in a logical argument: if you can not make a valid argument into a sound one without accepting a premise as true despite its veracity being in question, the accepting of it as true is unwarranted with regard the argument being made.

Where have I said you have to accept God as true? Do you think people accept Superman as true? Or do they just accept that the character named Superman has super powers?

Given that there is no evidence for God that does not rely on the assumption of God's existence (i.e. God exists therefore everything is evidence of God), yours would be an argument from personal incredulity rather than one I would consider rational or actually logical.

I did not claim that everything is evidence of God, I said; if God exists, then everything is evidence. It stands to reason. Right?

"So why not God?" is to answer a question for which we can't even say if there is an answer for us to know. It is just jumping on a conclusion that satisfies the need for an answer. Your very question in this regard fuels the notion that you are simply unable to accept "I don't know" as the conclusion.

My point is ‘’So why not God’’, as opposed to the completely illogical, and baseless notion that the material manifestation just upped and popped into existence, either from nothing, or, created itself, out of itself.

I don’t mind “I don’t know”. But most people can’t live their lives on ‘’I don’t knows’’, we all assume things we don’t know, but are totally important. The pleasure is in acquiring knowledge.

We build in assumptions for a practical reason without necessarily believing them as true without evidence. That is the difference.

Who is believing that assumptions are true?

Do you need me to be believing my assumptions are true without evidence?

There is no equating of God to anything, and your argument is simply insulting.

I don’t see it like that.

With regard the sole issue of evidence, yes.

It presupposes God is on the same level as silly ideas, why you conclude that there is no evidence.

If you comprehend who and what God is, then you realise you cannot use the same type of method that you would use to find invisible talented pepper pots.

It is you who then wants to widen the claim of the analogy beyond where how it is used, and then argue that this wider context is an issue for you.

Read above.

Ever heard of a strawman?

Yes, the one you constantly use to conclude there is no evidence of God.

It is an entirely logical conclusion: I have no knowledge of God that can be unambiguously and rationally attributed to God rather than the work of Man.

What about the manifestation of the material world?

I thus have nothing on which to base the interpretation of evidence to conclude that God exists. I thus can not claim to have any evidence that leads rationally and unambiguoulsy to me concluding that God exists.

We’ve already established that if God exists, then everything is the result of His Will, and is therefore evidence/truth, or at least I have. So how can any piece of data conclude that God exists (if He did exist)? How could you claim that there is no evidence of God, and not base that claim on your position of no belief in God? At least with theism ones mind can remain open because one has accepted the claim of scripture, even if one is in a position of no belief, because one can accept the definition of God, the way one accepts the definition of Superman without having to believe they are real.


Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

The athiest (or at least those who are so due to a claimed lack of evidence) perspective on the issue is all it needs to be: the atheist has a lack of evidence.

The modern atheist doesn't now what it is a lack of evidence of, because the atheist is looking for evidence of something the atheist has made up (Strawman), and it is the atheists notion of what evidence should be, which reveals this.

It may be that they actuallydo have whatyouinterpret as evidence, but only actual belief in God will enable one to interpret it as such.

I’ve interpreted nothing as evidence of God. It simply stands to reason that if God exists, then everything is evidence.

Or it may be that there is evidence that we can all interpret as God without first believing in Him, but you have yet to point any out, or to highlight any. Nor, to that point, has anyone else. Ever.

I don’t need to point anything out. It is what it is. I’m sure we all agree (even if it pains us) that if God exists, then everything is evidence. All I’m saying is that with this understanding, the atheist notion of what God is, and what constitutes evidence of God, are not consistent with the God that people actually believe in. The chocolate teapot explanation simply amplifies that.

Yet what you are actually requiring in this discussion is that I acceptyour definition of God, that the evidence I look for should be evidence ofyour God.

So you’re saying; The Supreme Being, The Supreme Cause, One without a second, The Almighty, The All-Pervading, The Original Person…. Are you seriously saying that all of these definitions are my personal conception of God, and are to be found nowhere else but in my head?

My response is that your statement is a truism.
So I don't see how your comment above is in any way relevant, or even to what you think it relates to.

I didn’t ask you if it was a truism, I asked if you agreed. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Argument from personal incredulity.

That wasn’t an argument.

It is the common approach to judge that which leads to the creation of our universe (if it indeed was created) by the internal machinations of our universe that only exist once created.

Creation is creation, whether finite or infinite. It would irresponsible, even silly of us to ignore the tell tale signs of creation in and of the world we live in. Especially when the alternative is simply to accept or believe they weren’t created. Please explain why you believe the latter has more credibility than the former?

The evidence would need to be extraordinary, because the claim of God's existence is also extraordinary.

Why is it?

If it is merely ordinary (such as "everything is evidence of God") then it will be possible to show how it is also "evidence" of God not existing.

I’m not claiming everything is evidence of God. I’m saying: All Together Now… If God exists then it stands to reason that everything is evidence of God, therefore when looking for evidence of God, one has to think differently about what constitutes evidence. You are stubbornly sticking to a rigid format, which does not work.

It would be interesting to see what you would come up with if you were asked to provide a reasonable explanation that shows there is no evidence for God.

You claim dishonesty so please show it. I have laid out my arguments for all to see, so where am I being dishonest.

How many times do have to explain that I’m not saying one has to believe in order to believe?



Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Round & round she goes Where she stops nobody knows.

 

[Seattle]

You’re looking at it from your perspective, and the mountain looks absolutely massive, and unmovable. In CGI, they can make an ant look like a mountain compared to a man, and we call that special effects. To God there is no size, everything is energy which He transforms as He likes.

How do you know this and how is it accomplished...using what laws of physics (and I'm not referring to E=mc2)?

Consciousness, is awareness, and is available in all living beings. Consciousness is the symptom of spirit, so you, I, and every other living being prove the existence of spirit.

My consciousness is derived from chemicals in my brain and doesn't exist outside of my brain. Also without my body I can accomplish nothing. So, how is it that "God" can accomplish anything? Do you think that God is outside the laws of physics?

Mainstream science is not going to accept God, therefore God will never exist if you’re waiting for proclamations. It’s already been affirmed “…Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ".

"Mainstream science" is a tool so it's nonsensical to say that a tool isn't going to accept God.

 

[Sarkus]

I agree that it’s accepted as real, because some people have experienced it, but I don’t agree it’s just an emotion like happy, or angry, and I don’t believe it can be known, or evidenced through patterns of behaviour.

Define it first and then we can carry on this line of discussion, otherwise it seems to be an irrelevant sidetrack... a strawman.

The reality is, itdoesn’t matter if it is defined or not, and science has no business in deciding what love is. It is outside of all of that.

Then you have defined it sufficiently to deem it unscientific in nature. Why not do so from the outset when asked?

I shouldn’t have to go to all that trouble to understand what you mean. Why don’t you just explain the same thing but in a less ambiguous way?

How is the term "all" ambiguous???

All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

When used as an adjective, yes.
When used as a noun it means "everything". How can you not know that???
So I ask again, how is "all" not specific enough for you?

It basically sounds like you thought you’d just throw any definition in the pot.
Now I’m asking you to elaborate on it, you back off, because it means you have to give it some thought.

There is no backing off, just shock at your inability to comprehend what the word "all" means in the definition I gave: "the creator/originator of all".

Where have I said you have to accept God as true? Do you think people accept Superman as true? Or do they just accept that the character named Superman has super powers?

Then you concede that the conclusion of "God exists" is an unsound argument? If you don't accept that the premise as true, then any conclusion is unsound, no matter how valid.
As for Superman, it is a matter of context. We can accept Superman as true within the context of the fictional realm.

I did not claim that everything is evidence of God, I said; if God exists, then everything is evidence. It stands to reason. Right?

Oh, it stands to reason. Yet it highlights your inability to understand what your arguments logically entail:
IF God exists then everything is evidence.
IF you believe God exists then you believe that everything is evidence of God.
You believe in the existence of God, therefore you believe that everything is evidence of God.
You thus do claim it, Jan, through what you claim to believe (that God exists) and through your argument above: IF God exists, then everything is evidence.
It is an inescapable logical conclusion of your position.
So don't try to argue that you did not claim it, because you have done... one merely needs to follow the logic of what you have said and of what your position is.

My point is ‘’So why not God’’, as opposed to the completely illogical, and baseless notion that the material manifestation just upped and popped into existence, either from nothing, or, created itself, out of itself.

The "completely illogical, and baseless" adjectives stem from personal incredulity, nothing more.
So we have a God that just exists, either from nothing, or created itself, out of itself (if God is the originator of all) but you won't accept it of our universe, nor will you bother to explore other notions (albeit unscientific) such as brane-theory etc, but rather you plump for one that fits your cycle of belief.

I don’t mind “I don’t know”. But most people can’t live their lives on ‘’I don’t knows’’, we all assume things we don’t know, but are totally important. The pleasure is in acquiring knowledge.

How does "I don't know" stop people acquiring knowledge if it is there to be acquired? This last comment is thus a non-sequitur.
So if you don't mind "I don't know" why do you jump on "God did it"?

Who is believing that assumptions are true?

Do or do you not believe God exists? That it is true that the scriptures are the word of God etc?

Do you need me to be believing my assumptions are true without evidence?

No, but from my perspective you do, and you have failed to provide any evidence that can lead me to rationally and unambiguously conclude in the existence of God.

I don’t see it like that.

Clearly.

It presupposes God is on the same level as silly ideas, why you conclude that there is no evidence.

No it doesn't, as previously explained.

If you comprehend who and what God is, then you realise you cannot use the same type of method that you would use to find invisible talented pepper pots.

And if there remains no evidence held by the person, the analogy remains valid, regardless of what method one uses to find evidence. It is an analogy that explains the atheist position: the holding of no evidence. It is not an analogy of God, nor of the theist position.

Yes, the one you constantly use to conclude there is no evidence of God.

Yet you have failed to provide any evidence that can lead me to rationally and unambiguously conclude in the existence of God. How is this a strawman when it speaks to the heart of the question of this thread?

What about the manifestation of the material world?

What about it?
If God exists then the manifestation of the material world is evidence of God's existence... agreed?
If God does not exist then the manifestation of the material world is evidence that God does not need to exist... agreed?
(If you do not agree to the second part then either you are lying, being deliberately dishonest, or simply unable to follow the simplest of logic).
Thus the manifestation of the material world can not lead me to rationally or unambiguously conclude that God exists, as it would be what it is whether God exists or God does not exist.
This is why the manifestation of the material world is not deemed evidence that supports God's existence.
Once that is thus discounted as support for either God or not-God, what knowledge of God is left that can be attributed to God rather than mechanistic processes / Man?

We’ve already established that if God exists, then everything is the result of His Will, and is therefore evidence/truth, or at least I have. So how can any piece of data conclude that God exists (if He did exist)? How could you claim that there is no evidence of God, and not base that claim on your position of no belief in God?

I start from the position that God's existence is what is in question and thus start from no assumption as to God's existence. I then see what evidence there is that supports one position over the other. I am not aware of any, and you have not provided me with any. Thus I can not conclude that God either exists or does not exist. I am agnostic.

At least with theism ones mind can remain open because one has accepted the claim of scripture, even if one is in a position of no belief, because one can accept the definition of God, the way one accepts the definition of Superman without having to believe they are real.

Don't make me laugh so much! Theism? Open minded?? LOL!
One can accept the definition of God without believing in God, and thus not be a theist.
So you start from stating theism enables you to remain open minded, yet then address theists and atheists alike ("even if one is in a position of no belief"). Or are you trying to argue that theists do not need to believe in God (as you would want it defined), or in the existence of God (as the rest of us define it)?

 

[Sarkus]

The modern atheist doesn't now what it is a lack of evidence of, because the atheist is looking for evidence of something the atheist has made up (Strawman), and it is the atheists notion of what evidence should be, which reveals this.

If one is not aware of what one is looking for, how can they logically conclude that they have evidence for it?
Your own argument here demonstrates why the atheist is correct to conclude they have no evidence if indeed they have an incorrect notion of God.
So I am confused as to why you are then arguing against this conclusion that they reach.

I’ve interpreted nothing as evidence of God. It simply stands to reason that if God exists, then everything is evidence.

Which, as logically shown in my post above, and given your belief in the existence of God, means that you interpret everything as evidence of God.
But let me lay it out for you again, just so you are absolutely sure about the logic:
Premise 1: If God exists, everything is evidence of God.
Premise 2: I believe God exists.
Conclusion: I believe everything is evidence of God.

Now, do you accept that logic, or are you going to try to evade by claiming that believing everything is evidence of God is not the same as "interpreting" everything as evidence of God? Which would be wrong if you did, as interpretation of everything as evidence logically follows from the conclusion above.

I don’t need to point anything out. It is what it is. I’m sure we all agree (even if it pains us) that if God exists, then everything is evidence. All I’m saying is that with this understanding, the atheist notion of what God is, and what constitutes evidence of God, are not consistent with the God that people actually believe in. The chocolate teapot explanation simply amplifies that.

Why would it pain you?
The notions can be entirely consistent, and most atheists would accept the logic of premise 1 (which itself is a conclusion stemming from the notion that God is the creator of all... oops, sorry, the creator of everything). But the issue here, as mentioned previously, which you merely skirt around without ever addressing, is that if one does not accept premise 2 then the conclusion does not follow, and thus everything does not become evidence of God, even if it is the same notion as the one theists have.
To believe that everything is evidence of God one has to believe God exists. Period.
By chocolate teapot I assume you refer to the celestial teapot? Chocolate teapots do exist - the term is oft used as a simile: as useful as a chocolate teapot etc.
The celestial teapot merely explains the atheist's position on the evidence they have that rationally and unambiguously supports the conclusion "God exists".

So you’re saying; The Supreme Being, The Supreme Cause, One without a second, The Almighty, The All-Pervading, The Original Person…. Are you seriously saying that all of these definitions are my personal conception of God, and are to be found nowhere else but in my head?

No. Where do you get that from? By referring to your notion I am distinguishing it from any that you think others may conjure up, or any that you think are simply different to your notion, irrespective of who else has the same notion as you, irrespective of where your notion may be documented, arise from etc.
The reference to "yours" merely differentiates it from any that is not the same as yours. It's as simple as that.

Question: is English your first language?

I didn’t ask you if it was a truism, I asked if you agreed. A simple yes or no will suffice.

How is calling something a truism not giving you the answer you want? And why do you want to prevent me from explaining why I reach the answer I do?

That wasn’t an argument.

Yes it was: it began with a premise (i.e. your current position) and reached a conclusion ("My position is X therefore Y").

Creation is creation, whether finite or infinite. It would irresponsible, even silly of us to ignore the tell tale signs of creation in and of the world we live in. Especially when the alternative is simply to accept or believe they weren’t created. Please explain why you believe the latter has more credibility than the former?

I don't. Nor have I ever said that. But thanks for the Strawman.
I currently find it most rational to accept that the universe began with the Big Bang, or some equivalent.
The issue is what gave rise to the Big Bang: some God per the Scriptures; or some mechanistic cause that has zero intelligence, zero intent, zero purpose; or something in between.

Why is it?

You have acceded that God is not ordinary. The existence of something not ordinary is itself not ordinary.

I’m not claiming everything is evidence of God. I’m saying: All Together Now… If God exists then it stands to reason that everything is evidence of God, therefore when looking for evidence of God, one has to think differently about what constitutes evidence. You are stubbornly sticking to a rigid format, which does not work.

All Together Now...
Premise 1: If God exists, everything is evidence of God.
Premise 2: I believe God exists.
Conclusion: I believe everything is evidence of God.
So yes, you are claiming that everything is evidence of God.
Or have I been mistaken all this time in thinking that you believe God exists? Are you actually an atheist???

It would be interesting to see what you would come up with if you were asked to provide a reasonable explanation that shows there is no evidence for God.

I can't show that there is no evidence for God. I can merely say that I do not have any, nor am I aware of any, that leads me to rationally and unambiguously conclude that God exists. There is plenty of evidence if one starts with the notion that God exists and created everything, as everything would be evidence.
But then if God does not exist, everything is evidence that God does not need to exist... and so everything is neither evidence for nor against... IF one keeps an open mind about such matters.
In the absence of evidence, while it is not evidence of absence, I find it rational to accept the absence as the current state of affairs.

How many times do have to explain that I’m not saying one has to believe in order to believe?

Whatever. You have your view on that, and I have mine.