Anfauglir and junebug72 debate evidence for god

[junebug72]

If you like, here is the short version.

What evidence do YOU require if someone asks YOU to accept that the object of their beliefs really exists?

We still haven't even gotten to looking at your evidence yet Junebug.  I'm still trying to establish whether you have a consistent definition of what constitues evidence that we can use for the coming debate.

All you want to do is fight. You said you have no desire to find God.

I'm a lover not a fighter. Make love not war all that good stuff.  I just want peace.

[Anfauglir]

If you like, here is the short version.

What evidence do YOU require if someone asks YOU to accept that the object of their beliefs really exists?

We still haven't even gotten to looking at your evidence yet Junebug.  I'm still trying to establish whether you have a consistent definition of what constitues evidence that we can use for the coming debate.

All you want to do is fight. You said you have no desire to find God.

I'm a lover not a fighter. Make love not war all that good stuff.  I just want peace.

Also: "You said you have no desire to find God".  Please can you QUOTE me saying that?  Because I know for a fact that I am on record several times as saying that if there is a god out there, I would be very interested in finding out about it.

We regularly have people visit this site, and each one has a different definition of what "god" is, and what that god wants of me, and what I should do to find that god.  Its why I no longer (if I ever did) simply accept someone's word that their particular god really exists.

It's why I ask for evidence.  It's why I asked you to provide me with evidence.

And I assumed - when you agreed to discuss your evidence - that you were prepared to share something useful with me.

Are you saying that you are not prepared to discuss the evidence for your god?

Because here's the thing, Junebug.  If you've got real, actual evidence for your god, that you can share with me, and that I can examine and say "yes, this proves Junebug's god is real".....well, then you'll have me on your side 100% striving for the peace you claim you seek.

[junebug72]

If you like, here is the short version.

What evidence do YOU require if someone asks YOU to accept that the object of their beliefs really exists?

We still haven't even gotten to looking at your evidence yet Junebug.  I'm still trying to establish whether you have a consistent definition of what constitues evidence that we can use for the coming debate.

All you want to do is fight. You said you have no desire to find God.

I'm a lover not a fighter. Make love not war all that good stuff.  I just want peace.

Also: "You said you have no desire to find God".  Please can you QUOTE me saying that?  Because I know for a fact that I am on record several times as saying that if there is a god out there, I would be very interested in finding out about it.

We regularly have people visit this site, and each one has a different definition of what "god" is, and what that god wants of me, and what I should do to find that god.  Its why I no longer (if I ever did) simply accept someone's word that their particular god really exists.

It's why I ask for evidence.  It's why I asked you to provide me with evidence.

And I assumed - when you agreed to discuss your evidence - that you were prepared to share something useful with me.

Are you saying that you are not prepared to discuss the evidence for your god?

Because here's the thing, Junebug.  If you've got real, actual evidence for your god, that you can share with me, and that I can examine and say "yes, this proves Junebug's god is real".....well, then you'll have me on your side 100% striving for the peace you claim you seek.

Anf-I don't believe you DO understand my "need for evidence".  I'm not desperately seeking evidence of your little god, Junebug, any more than I am seeking evidence for John's Magic Socks. 

[Anfauglir]

Also: "You said you have no desire to find God".  Please can you QUOTE me saying that?  Because I know for a fact that I am on record several times as saying that if there is a god out there, I would be very interested in finding out about it.

I don't believe you DO understand my "need for evidence".  I'm not desperately seeking evidence of your little god, Junebug, any more than I am seeking evidence for John's Magic Socks. 

And - as I would come to expect - you misunderstood me.  As I recall, you'd also just patronisingly told me that you "understood my need for evidence".  You said that "I thought maybe my story might help, with the truth being it might prove you wrong".  Perhaps you didn't intend it, but you certainly came across as a smug believer who is positive that all atheists are really just "angry at god" and desperate for his love.  Hence my response that I was not "desperately seeking" your god, or any god - but that is a very different thing to having "no desire to find god", as it now suits you to paint it.

I am not desperately seeking the Lost Treasures of El Dorado - but that in no way means I would cast them aside if I came across them.

Are you saying that you are not prepared to discuss the evidence for your god?  That you are ONLY prepared to discuss your god's existence with someone who falls down on bended knee before you and cries out "yes, yes, Junebug, I need your god, please help me to find them"?

I THOUGHT that this thread was to discuss the evidence for your god.  You seem desperate to avoid coming anywhere even close to doing that.  So I'll ask the question again, Junebug.

What evidence do YOU require if someone asks YOU to accept that the object of their beliefs really exists?

As soon as you have answered that, we can start to discuss the evidence for your god - if you still have any interest in doing that.  I DO - so if you're still prepared, get to it and stop with the excuses not to do it.

[junebug72]

get to it and stop with the excuses not to do it.

I am not going to subject myself to this anymore. You have come at me with so many false accusations. Say one thing, mean another, it's exasperating to put it mildly.  I have offered peace to no prevail there's just nothing else to say here except good luck and goodbye!!!

[Anfauglir]

You have no evidence for your god.

I wish you'd just admitted that at the start, rather than waste both our time.

I suspect you know full well that everything you believe has no more truth behind it than John's Socks.  That's why you won't say what evidence you would expect from others, because you know full well that your own claims would not stand up to that same scrutiny.

Run away by all means, if that is all you have left to you.  Personally, I find it both dishonest and cowardly, but I don't have to live with that.

If you ever want to return to this thread and honestly answer some questions, I will be waiting.

[junebug72]

You have no evidence for your god.

I wish you'd just admitted that at the start, rather than waste both our time.

I suspect you know full well that everything you believe has no more truth behind it than John's Socks.  That's why you won't say what evidence you would expect from others, because you know full well that your own claims would not stand up to that same scrutiny.

Run away by all means, if that is all you have left to you.  Personally, I find it both dishonest and cowardly, but I don't have to live with that.

If you ever want to return to this thread and honestly answer some questions, I will be waiting.

If you want to continue address the evidence provided. 

I have never lied to you and I thought it was very brave to admit that I don't have all the answers. 

[Anfauglir]

If you want to continue address the evidence provided. 

I have never lied to you and I thought it was very brave to admit that I don't have all the answers.

And I think it is very cowardly to keep dodging the questions.

We cannot address "evidence" until we can agree on what "evidence" consists of.  So if you could please let me know what you regard as an acceptable standard for evidence, we can get cracking.

As someone once said:

Please don't dodge this question. I can't wait to hear the answer.

[junebug72]

If you want to continue address the evidence provided. 

I have never lied to you and I thought it was very brave to admit that I don't have all the answers.

And I think it is very cowardly to keep dodging the questions.

We cannot address "evidence" until we can agree on what "evidence" consists of.  So if you could please let me know what you regard as an acceptable standard for evidence, we can get cracking.

As someone once said:

Please don't dodge this question. I can't wait to hear the answer.

I don't know what else to say to you.  If that's your opinion, so what.  I really don't care.  I don't agree with you; I am not a coward.  We haven't agreed on anything and we will not agree on what's acceptable evidence either.  I have got better things to do with my time than argue with you.

Sticks and stones brother, sticks and stones.

Take care Anf and please feel free to do some name calling at least you're leaving some other nice person alone.

[Anfauglir]

If you want to continue address the evidence provided. 

I have never lied to you and I thought it was very brave to admit that I don't have all the answers.

And I think it is very cowardly to keep dodging the questions.

We cannot address "evidence" until we can agree on what "evidence" consists of.  So if you could please let me know what you regard as an acceptable standard for evidence, we can get cracking.

As someone once said:

Please don't dodge this question. I can't wait to hear the answer.

I don't know what else to say to you.  If that's your opinion, so what.  I really don't care.  I don't agree with you; I am not a coward.  We haven't agreed on anything and we will not agree on what's acceptable evidence either.

Maybe we could, maybe we couldn't.  But until you are prepared to even answer the question, we'll never find out will we?

What do you regard as an acceptable standard for evidence?

So far, it appears to be "if I think it is true, its evidence.  If I don't think its true, then it isn't".  And frankly that is the most cowardly and dishonest attitude I can conceive of.

The fact that you keep coming back and trying to justify yourself, but refusing to answer the question, speaks volumes about you.

[Anfauglir]

Let's cut through all the chaff.

I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.

I have asked you several times now to do this, and you have not done so.

Do you intend to ever answer this question?  If you do not, then the debate for "evidence for god" is over, because you are refusing even to define the terms.

[junebug72]

Let's cut through all the chaff.

I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.

I have asked you several times now to do this, and you have not done so.

Do you intend to ever answer this question?  If you do not, then the debate for "evidence for god" is over, because you are refusing even to define the terms.

I'm pretty sure I have said many times now it can not be done.  The technology does not exist. That's why belief is based on reason not evidence. 

[Anfauglir]

I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.

I'm pretty sure I have said many times now it can not be done.  The technology does not exist. That's why belief is based on reason not evidence.

Then I don't understand.  If you do not believe there is evidence that supports a belief in a god, why did you say this?

I believe there's enough evidence to continue my path of Godliness.

or this?

You want evidence you don't have to work for.  You are unwilling to try anything so how can I help you with evidence.

or this?

I felt God's presence as I have many times since coming to this website. Right there is your evidence.....I say this is strong evidence, absolute evidence, evidence you can not deny.

Three statements there, that all say that you have evidence.  Not reasoning - evidence.

Perhaps you used the wrong word all those times.  If so, fair enough.  If you want to go on record as saying you have no evidence that supports your god, and wish instead to discuss your reasons for belief, then fine.  Just say so, and I will be happy to switch the focus of the debate to reasoning rather than evidence.

So to be completely clear: you are confirming that you have no evidence for your god, is that correct?  And that no evidence is possible?

Sorry to have to belabour the point, but I'm sure you can see how important it is to be clear, given how your statements previously appear to me to be contradictory?

[junebug72]

I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.

I'm pretty sure I have said many times now it can not be done.  The technology does not exist. That's why belief is based on reason not evidence.

Then I don't understand.  If you do not believe there is evidence that supports a belief in a god, why did you say this?

I believe there's enough evidence to continue my path of Godliness.

or this?

You want evidence you don't have to work for.  You are unwilling to try anything so how can I help you with evidence.

or this?

I felt God's presence as I have many times since coming to this website. Right there is your evidence.....I say this is strong evidence, absolute evidence, evidence you can not deny.

Three statements there, that all say that you have evidence.  Not reasoning - evidence.

Perhaps you used the wrong word all those times.  If so, fair enough.  If you want to go on record as saying you have no evidence that supports your god, and wish instead to discuss your reasons for belief, then fine.  Just say so, and I will be happy to switch the focus of the debate to reasoning rather than evidence.

So to be completely clear: you are confirming that you have no evidence for your god, is that correct?  And that no evidence is possible?

Sorry to have to belabour the point, but I'm sure you can see how important it is to be clear, given how your statements previously appear to me to be contradictory?

You said it wasn't evidence.  What I say is there is not evidence that is acceptable to you.  I believe existence itself is evidence you don't, what am I supposed to do with that.  Actual unexplained miracles happen, you say that's not evidence.  The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience, you say that's not evidence.  You want DNA or something and that it is not possible especially by little ole me.

So I'll say this; I do not have evidence that holds up to your standards and I would be happy to debate reason with you.

[Anfauglir]

I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.

I'm pretty sure I have said many times now it can not be done.  The technology does not exist. That's why belief is based on reason not evidence.

Quite honestly, I have no clue what your position is.  That quote above seems to make it clear that there is NO evidence that you would regard as sufficient to support the truth of a belief.  Such evidence, you say, does not exist.  Evidence does not support belief.  Okay, fine.

But now - again - you shift your focus and say that:

I believe existence itself is evidence.....
Actual unexplained miracles happen.....
The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience.....

That's three claims - the last 2 of which are eminently testable as evidence, which I would have been happy to discuss - but then, again, you switch your tack and say that

I do not have evidence that holds up to your standards.....

This last is particularly dishonest, because - so far - I have not laid down any standards for evidence.  I have been waiting (somewhat impatiently) for YOU to set down the standards of evidence acceptable for a belief.  So let's have less dishonesty from you Junebug, YOU are the one refusing to even suggest a standard for evidence - unless that standard is "evidence is impossible".  Which flies in the face of statements like "The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience", something which - to me - seems eminently testable.

I really, honestly, do not understand what you are suggesting.

One day, you say "there is NO evidence possible - we simply cannot detect or measure god".
On another day, you make specific claims about "actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience", which would be the first step towards evidence.

Help me out Junebug.  Which is it?

[junebug72]

I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.

I'm pretty sure I have said many times now it can not be done.  The technology does not exist. That's why belief is based on reason not evidence.

Quite honestly, I have no clue what your position is.  That quote above seems to make it clear that there is NO evidence that you would regard as sufficient to support the truth of a belief.  Such evidence, you say, does not exist.  Evidence does not support belief.  Okay, fine.

But now - again - you shift your focus and say that:

I believe existence itself is evidence.....
Actual unexplained miracles happen.....
The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience.....

That's three claims - the last 2 of which are eminently testable as evidence, which I would have been happy to discuss - but then, again, you switch your tack and say that

I do not have evidence that holds up to your standards.....

This last is particularly dishonest, because - so far - I have not laid down any standards for evidence.  I have been waiting (somewhat impatiently) for YOU to set down the standards of evidence acceptable for a belief.  So let's have less dishonesty from you Junebug, YOU are the one refusing to even suggest a standard for evidence - unless that standard is "evidence is impossible".  Which flies in the face of statements like "The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience", something which - to me - seems eminently testable.

I really, honestly, do not understand what you are suggesting.

One day, you say "there is NO evidence possible - we simply cannot detect or measure god".
On another day, you make specific claims about "actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience", which would be the first step towards evidence.

Help me out Junebug.  Which is it?

Dangit Anffie quit calling me dishonest.  Why can't we have a debate w/o insults.  I mean gee whiz.  I certainly have shortcomings but dishonesty isn't one of them. 

It's easy for you to call names and poke fun, have you ever 1 time thought how difficult my job is.  I'm trying to stand up for The God that you can not see, hear, or feel.  You don't want to.  You have to be a willing participant to know God.  At least have an open mind.  Your mind is as closed as it gets.

If you can't turn this into a "friendly" debate I'm going to jet.

Felt my grandson kick, heck more like cartwheeling , last night.  Had a healthy check up;  good strong heartbeat.   

What I'm saying there is you have your standards and I have mine.  Mine is circumstantial; you want concrete.  Concrete I can not give you.  I am not a professional God prover, I do the best I can.

[junebug72]

I am not the one asking for the evidence so my standards are not relevant.  The only opinion that matters is yours.  You want to discuss miracles and brain activity sounds good.

[Anfauglir]

I am not the one asking for the evidence so my standards are not relevant.  The only opinion that matters is yours. 

We cannot discuss "evidence for god" until we have agreed on what is an acceptable standard for evidence.
I am happy to accept YOUR definition for a standard of evidence. 
I have been waiting since this thread began for you to define what that is.

If you are unwilling to define your acceptable standard of evidence, I will define mine.
I will expect you then to begin the debate, and we will compare any evidence you have against my standard.

You have three options here.

1) Define your standard for evidence.  I will accept that, and we can begin to examine the evidence for god with respect to that standard.
2) You can refuse to define your standard for evidence.  I will then define mine, you will accept it, and we can begin to examine the evidence for god with respect to that standard.
3) You can refuse to define your standard for evidence, and will refuse to accept my standard for evidence.  In this case there is no debate that can be had on "evidence for god" and we can end this thread.

Please pick one.

[junebug72]

Yes I think we should just give up.  I want peace.  I know it's a waste of my time to try and convince you God exists.  I think God understands and loves you regardless of what you believe. 

Take care Anf. I wish you Peace and Joy!!!

[Anfauglir]

3) You can refuse to define your standard for evidence, and will refuse to accept my standard for evidence.  In this case there is no debate that can be had on "evidence for god" and we can end this thread.

Junebug chooses 3.

Yes I think we should just give up.  I want peace.  I know it's a waste of my time to try and convince you God exists. 

This thread is a waste of time because you refuse to define what YOU regard as sufficient evidence for a claim.  No more, no less. 

If you ever summon the intellectual honesty and fortitude to answer that question, we can resume.