Author Topic: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.  (Read 8016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Agent_099

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2008, 10:28:05 PM »
Ibelieve:

Please provide actual evidence to support your claims.  Real evidence.  The sort of thing that would convince someone who didn't already believe in the Bible that what you say is true or at least probable to some degree.  If you do not have any evidence, please be honest enough to concede the point.  Also, Cycle4Fun has shown you enough consideration to spend time gathering links to videos you could watch in a few minutes each, to gain a basic understanding of the position you are arguing against.  It is only common courtesy to watch at least some of the videos and try to inform yourself about the topics you are trying to discuss. 

If you do not make at least some effort to demonstrate that you are more than a troll, you will be dealt with accordinly.

Thank you for your participation.

99   
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 10:37:05 PM by Moderator_099 »
Former Moderator Account

Offline Shakaib

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2008, 09:20:02 AM »
I'll sort you guys out when I'm in space tonight :)

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2012, 04:53:07 PM »
I invite everyone here specially atheists and theists to first come to concurrence on the concept of God and the concept of evidence.

Here is my concept of God: the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

And here is my concept of evidence: any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.


The certainty of God's existence or nonexistence must before everything else start with concurrence on the concept of God, otherwise folks i.e. everyone is talking past everyone's else head, and that is irrational behavior.

Now, since atheists insist on evidence, then specially atheists should work first to come to concurrence with theists on a common mutually accepted concept of what is evidence; otherwise everyone would be talking past everyone's head, which is irrational behavior.


First, we deal with concepts, then we will go into the actual objective reality of existing things outside our mind to search for God.



Susmariosep

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2012, 05:48:04 PM »
These threads are the worst.
I typically have a high tolerance for bullshit, but these threads somehow manage to shorten the wic significantly.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2012, 07:09:32 PM »
Can't exactly argue with the statement that ranting out loud about something doesn't change reality.

But neither does keeping a closed mind and refusing to even consider anything outside of a book believed to be holy.

I have a question for you, Ibelieve.  You believe that everything was ultimately created by God, correct?  Doesn't that mean that the evidence pointing towards the Big Bang would also have to have come from God?  All of the evidence about the Big Bang came from observation of the universe.  All of it is there in the skies for those who have ways to observe it.

It seems more than a little odd for you to loudly proclaim that the skies and the stars prove the existence of your god, and yet to ignore the evidence that we attain by observing those very same things suggesting things like the Big Bang.  Even more odd for you to arbitrarily claim that the Big Bang just didn't happen, without even so much as considering the evidence that humanity has gathered suggesting that it indeed did happen.

Have you studied both sides of the argument carefully, so you can come to an honest position?  Or are you guilty of the same mistake you accuse others of, in only considering your own beliefs fairly and disregarding everything else.

So far, you haven't exactly inspired much confidence that the former is true.

EDIT--Please don't necro topics that are almost four years old.  Most of the people who posted here are long gone.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 07:12:06 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2012, 07:27:19 PM »
edit

Susmariosep, you've posted in a 4 year old thread. This is called thread necromancy and it is against the forum rules you agreed to adhere to when you signed up.

Please take more care in the future.


Jaimehlers, the person you replied to abandonned this thread and the forum long ago.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2012, 07:46:49 PM »


I am sorry, and I confess I did not read all the rules here.


What do you say, allow this thread to resume even though I am not the author, or should I and may I or better you transfer (or I start a new thread), etc., so that the topic about concurring on concepts of God and evidence will not be forfeited because of having started it in the wrong place.


But to be honest, I am glad that people so far some few are still interested, and I chose this thread because the original author took for the title, God -- the evidence.

I await your pleasure.



Susmariosep




ps

"An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you cannot post new topics in this board."


I tried to post that main message above and the error message in quote marks came up on my screen; then I tried to pm you but could not manage to get to how to pm a poster, so I just tried again to post the above message by clicking on the reply link, and I hope this message comes out in public.


Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2012, 07:52:33 PM »


I am sorry, and I confess I did not read all the rules here.


What do you say, allow this thread to resume even though I am not the author, or should I and may I or better you transfer (or I start a new thread), etc., so that the topic about concurring on concepts of God and evidence will not be forfeited because of having started it in the wrong place.


But to be honest, I am glad that people so far some few are still interested, and I chose this thread because the original author took for the title, God -- the evidence.

I await your pleasure.



Susmariosep




ps

"An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you cannot post new topics in this board."


I tried to post that main message above and the error message in quote marks came up on my screen; then I tried to pm you but could not manage to get to how to pm a poster, so I just tried again to post the above message by clicking on the reply link, and I hope this message comes out in public.
There is a minimum post count before you can start a thread. I forget the # its not too high, but introducing yourself in that introduction forum and a few posts there after typically takes care of that minimum.

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2012, 07:57:14 PM »
Can't exactly argue with the statement that ranting out loud about something doesn't change reality.

But neither does keeping a closed mind and refusing to even consider anything outside of a book believed to be holy.

I have a question for you, Ibelieve.  You believe that everything was ultimately created by God, correct?  Doesn't that mean that the evidence pointing towards the Big Bang would also have to have come from God?  All of the evidence about the Big Bang came from observation of the universe.  All of it is there in the skies for those who have ways to observe it.

It seems more than a little odd for you to loudly proclaim that the skies and the stars prove the existence of your god, and yet to ignore the evidence that we attain by observing those very same things suggesting things like the Big Bang.  Even more odd for you to arbitrarily claim that the Big Bang just didn't happen, without even so much as considering the evidence that humanity has gathered suggesting that it indeed did happen.

Have you studied both sides of the argument carefully, so you can come to an honest position?  Or are you guilty of the same mistake you accuse others of, in only considering your own beliefs fairly and disregarding everything else.

So far, you haven't exactly inspired much confidence that the former is true.

EDIT--Please don't necro topics that are almost four years old.  Most of the people who posted here are long gone.


Just in case this thread can be resumed, I will reply to you jaimehlers.

I am not Ibelieve, but a new poster here, and I have this idea that we should all before everything else agree on concepts, specifically the concept of God and the concept of evidence, which are the words in the topic of this thread, otherwise we will be into irrational dialog talking past each other's head.

Please just contribute your concepts of God as of evidence, and we can work out a mutually acceptable concept of God and also of evidence, in order to exchange thoughts on the existence or nonexistence of God.


Susmariosep

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2012, 08:04:23 PM »
"Susmariosep, Timtheskeptic, Brakeman, rev45, jetson, lomolo, jaimehlers and 3 Guests are viewing this topic."


Well, I am glad that there are people interested in this topic, and I hope we all can have a very productive and civil exchange of thoughts on the topic, so that we can judge whether God exists or does not exist on the basis of evidence.


I will just check in again after two hours.



Susmariosep

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2012, 08:25:41 PM »
I'm not sure whether we should ask for a thread split, carry on as is, or start fresh, but here are My thoughts on what we have to resolve before this goes any further:

  • What is a god, exactly, and how do we distinguish it from a powerful non-divine being?
  • Isn't it a little premature to attribute the physical universe to a non-natural process?  Physical cosmology is still a relatively new science, and at the planetary level we've found plausible non-divine explanations for lots of things previously attributed to gods.
  • Given that anyone and his Canis lupus familiaris can write a book and (mis)represent it as divine, why do so many people continue to proffer same as "evidence" of gods?
  • Even if we do manage to hash out a coherent definition for "god," which one(s) are we talking about?  It could be a being already worshipped by humans in the past or present, or one that's completely unknown.  How are we going to keep the debate on an even keel when one group is saying tomayto Yahweh and someone else is saying tomahto Saraswati?
  • Oh, and I would like testable physical evidence, please, not philosophical arm-wrestling or subjective personal experiences.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2012, 08:35:03 PM »

I gave up a long time ago on letting other people do my thinking for me.


And yet, you quote from a book of mythology, introduced to you by some other folks who told you they spoke for the author.

If there were a god, he wouldn't need you to introduce himself to me.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2012, 09:43:53 PM »
specifically the concept of God

OK, the God that is worshiped by the Christians who goes by the name YHWH. First, please state your specific denomination, which version of the bible you use, and if you believe in the literal translation of that holy book, or metaphorical translation.

EDIT: Or the god of whatever religion you follow. State it specifically. State its characterists and how it intervenes with the universe. And state which holy book it is found in.

Quote
and the concept of evidence,

My concept of evidence is that which is proof of it existing. Proof such as: Trustworthy documents (note: the bible is not trustworthy, IMO. It's circular reasoning to use it as proof) and it wont hurt if that document has been examined by notable experts and has been critique, or has been used by others in their study or papers (referenced), and nothing ambiguous or subjective, and it must be able to be tested. Nothing vague. If talking about scientific findings, it must be peer-reviewed. Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute don't count as peer-reviewers.

Agree?

-Em
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 09:49:42 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2012, 09:47:16 PM »
What do you say, allow this thread to resume even though I am not the author,

Ya, that's fine. But, before your next post, read the rules. When you make a mistake, it's other people who have to clean up after you. You want to make a good impression, and demonstrate you are forthright.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2061
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2012, 10:30:41 PM »
Welcome Susmarjosep

Here is my concept of God: the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

The first problem I see with this sentence is that there are 2 descriptors for your concept of God which describe what it is NOT, and not what it actually is. To say something is unique is to say that it is NOT like other things.  To say something is uncreated is to say that it is NOT created.  It's like describing my computer as NOT a printer and NOT a toaster.  We know what it's NOT; please try to describe what your concept of god IS. 

Also, saying that God created and operates the universe is an unsupported assertion.  It has not been established that the universe was created by a deity of some sort. 

My personal feeling is that you need to try again. 

And here is my concept of evidence: any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

This is worse.  I'd rather we stick with the standard definition of evidence here that you could find in most any dictionary.  This is from Dictionary.com

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

I do not accept your definition above.  If you'd like to find or coin a new word to encompass what you said up there, feel free.  But the phrase you posted does not define 'evidence'. 

The certainty of God's existence or nonexistence must before everything else start with concurrence on the concept of God, otherwise folks i.e. everyone is talking past everyone's else head, and that is irrational behavior.

True that.

Now, since atheists insist on evidence, then specially atheists should work first to come to concurrence with theists on a common mutually accepted concept of what is evidence; otherwise everyone would be talking past everyone's head, which is irrational behavior.

We have one.  We've always had one.  There's been one for a long time.  The problem is that theists tend not to follow the one in the dictionary and atheists do.

The problem is bigger than that though.  God, for most believers is a foregone conclusion.  They START by saying, 'There is a god' and work everything else back into it; whereas the atheist (most often) starts with the question 'Is there a god' and uses the evidence to guide that answer.

It also has a lot to do with how much of the evidence is actually taken into consideration.  This concept has its roots in the sheer ignorance of all the available evidence.

For example: 'Jesus rose from the dead'.  Now, the Christian will look at that phrase with the preconceived notion that God is real, so obviously, Jesus can rise from the dead.  It's in the bible, and they take the bible to be 'evidence' that it actually happened.  It ONLY works like this if you first believe in God.  If you are an atheist, however, when you look at that phrase, you take it in a different direction.  You see the bible as one source that confirms that Jesus rose from the dead, but you need more than that; so you look at who wrote the gospels (we don't know), you look at the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (zero), and you look at how many of the original copies of the manuscripts we have (zero), and the 'evidence' that the bible presents suddenly gets pretty flimsy.  Given the reality that people do NOT rise from the dead, and that there have been thousands of proposed gods or god like figures who have risen from the dead in the history of mankind, and that the odds that someone simply made that story up are so much greater than the odds of someone rising from the dead 3 days later, and it's a slam dunk. 

You see what I mean?  An atheist is guided by the evidence in terms of religious belief.  On one hand, we have 'evidence' that Jesus rose from the dead in the form of the gospel stories.  We also have 'evidence' (all that other stuff I mentioned, plus a whole lot more) that goes against that notion.  When put side by side, the sum total of the 'evidence' here is massively against the notion that Jesus rose from the dead. 

That's just one example; there are thousands you could come up with. 

Coming up with a solid concept of what god IS is a very good idea, however.  Keep at it and see what you come up with.  Don't beat yourself up, however, when you realize it's a completely nebulous concept which defies definition in any meaningful sense. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2012, 11:42:02 PM »
I'm not sure whether we should ask for a thread split, carry on as is, or start fresh, but here are My thoughts on what we have to resolve before this goes any further:

  • What is a god, exactly, and how do we distinguish it from a powerful non-divine being?
  • Isn't it a little premature to attribute the physical universe to a non-natural process?  Physical cosmology is still a relatively new science, and at the planetary level we've found plausible non-divine explanations for lots of things previously attributed to gods.
  • Given that anyone and his Canis lupus familiaris can write a book and (mis)represent it as divine, why do so many people continue to proffer same as "evidence" of gods?
  • Even if we do manage to hash out a coherent definition for "god," which one(s) are we talking about?  It could be a being already worshipped by humans in the past or present, or one that's completely unknown.  How are we going to keep the debate on an even keel when one group is saying tomayto Yahweh and someone else is saying tomahto Saraswati?
  • Oh, and I would like testable physical evidence, please, not philosophical arm-wrestling or subjective personal experiences.


I propose that you just think what information you have for the concept of God which you care to tell theists about, and I as a theist will see whether your information and my information concur.

If not, we can work on concurring so as to come to a mutually accepted concept of God, Whose existence then in the actual objective reality of existing things outside our mind we can both seek evidence to establish.

See also whether you have any information on what is your concept of evidence.

Otherwise we will be talking past each other's head about God and evidence, and that is irrational for us both.


Susmariosep

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4613
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2012, 11:53:35 PM »
can the same be applied to all gods? or just yours? Something written by a now very primitive group of people,who were at best very ignorant of the world around them can hardly be used as evidence for any god.....which is why you dismiss claims from other religions about their gods
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #46 on: July 17, 2012, 12:06:24 AM »
specifically the concept of God

OK, the God that is worshiped by the Christians who goes by the name YHWH. First, please state your specific denomination, which version of the bible you use, and if you believe in the literal translation of that holy book, or metaphorical translation.

EDIT: Or the god of whatever religion you follow. State it specifically. State its characterists and how it intervenes with the universe. And state which holy book it is found in.

Quote
and the concept of evidence,

My concept of evidence is that which is proof of it existing. Proof such as: Trustworthy documents (note: the bible is not trustworthy, IMO. It's circular reasoning to use it as proof) and it wont hurt if that document has been examined by notable experts and has been critique, or has been used by others in their study or papers (referenced), and nothing ambiguous or subjective, and it must be able to be tested. Nothing vague. If talking about scientific findings, it must be peer-reviewed. Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute don't count as peer-reviewers.

Agree?

-Em


Here again are my concept of God and my concept of evidence:


[...]

Here is my concept of God: the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

And here is my concept of evidence: any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

[...]



If I may, please just think about what concept of God is the most adequate and most up to date as to do justice to God, taking into account His fundamental relation to the universe.

About your concept of evidence, please just think how you can put in ten words your concept of evidence.


If you ask me, this is what I think is the most adequate and up to date concept of God, pardon the repetition:



Here is my concept of God: the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.


Try to put your concept of God in very few substantial words as to do justice to God.

If you just imagine that you are God, what kind of concept of God that is adequate and up to date in His relation to the universe that will do justice to you were you God?


About evidence, once you exert efforts to think as to come out with a concept of evidence that is not more than ten words, then I am sure your concept and mine will concur substantially.



Susmariosep

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #47 on: July 17, 2012, 12:08:51 AM »
What do you say, allow this thread to resume even though I am not the author,

Ya, that's fine. But, before your next post, read the rules. When you make a mistake, it's other people who have to clean up after you. You want to make a good impression, and demonstrate you are forthright.


Thanks for your forbearance, I will now proceed to read the rules.



Susmariosep

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2012, 12:16:43 AM »
Sus, I ask you, what god are you talking about. Does it have a name? Does it have a holy book? If so, what holy book it is. If it;s the bible, what version of the bible do you follow (read). You're being too vague.

Quote
About your concept of evidence, please just think how you can put in ten words your concept of evidence.

Ten words is very far from enough for my concept of evidence!
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 12:19:09 AM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #49 on: July 17, 2012, 12:23:21 AM »
Okay, I have read the new Rules and I will abide by them.


Just for an input, this paragraph about trolling:

"Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated."

In the Infidels.org forum the old one prior to its meltdown, there was a prohibition against any poster accusing another poster of trolling; if a poster is not happy with another poster because he observes the latter to be into trolling, then he should just complain to the powers that govern the forum, and accusation of trolling is anything also which is equivalent to it even though the word trolling is not used.

Why did they not allow people to accuse other people of trolling? My own opinion is because it is an inhibition to free thought and the corresponding free speech.

You throw the epithet of trolling on someone, how is he going to defend himself?



However, I could be mistaken; too bad the old Infidels.org forum had regrettably demised.



Just let me know on the slightest indication from my part that I am violating the rules here.



Susmariosep

Offline Susmariosep

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Darwins +0/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2012, 12:32:51 AM »
Emily, please just think of a concept of God that will be the most adequate and will do justice to God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

No need to bring in all gods, goddesses, deities, divinities whatever for a comparative survey.


And no need to mention the names of various whatever gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., the name God is already known to people who use it; if you prefer you can ask around what they mean when they invoke God saying God bless you, or may God protect us, etc.

Or do a survey of dictionaries for the name God with the G in upper case.



Susmariosep

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #51 on: July 17, 2012, 12:39:17 AM »
Emily, please just think of a concept of God that will be the most adequate and will do justice to God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I can not. Simply because I have no idea what you're talking about.

How about this approach:

What are your religious beliefs.

Are you a christian? Do you belief in YHYW. If so, why?

begin the discussion with what you believe god  is. your concept of god is vague. Clear it up.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2012, 12:48:49 AM »
I propose that you just think what information you have for the concept of God which you care to tell theists about, and I as a theist will see whether your information and my information concur.

Well, I have no problem defining gods as "powerful and long-lived entities with apparent ability to circumvent known scientific laws."

I have a major problem with concepts like "uncreated creator" or "unique." I just don't see any way for a creator-god to exist before energy/matter.  Energy is so closely allied to matter that such a deity wouldn't be creating the physical universe from true nothingness; it would just be rearranging subatomic particles and manipulating preexisting energy sources.  I also don't see any reason at all that there should be one and only one god.

Evidence-wise I would need a physical manifestation of a god, but might settle for a characteristic energy signature  that appears in the wake of "miracles" and the like.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #53 on: July 17, 2012, 05:35:37 AM »
G'day Sus

can you please address Jeffs post

>snip<
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2012, 05:42:17 AM »
susmariosep, it is difficult for an atheist to define god because we do not believe in god. For the sake of the debate/discussion we can agree to the terms of your proposed god in order to then proceed as to why such an entity does not and cannot exist, or why your specific description of god may exist (no reason to see why it cannot).

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12324
  • Darwins +675/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2012, 06:55:47 AM »
Do you think God (upper case G) is the same as yhwh, son of El, husband of Asherah, rival of Baal, member of the elohim, and patron god of the iron age canaanite tribe called "Hebrews"?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #56 on: July 17, 2012, 07:36:13 AM »
Do you think God (upper case G) is the same as yhwh, son of El, husband of Asherah, rival of Baal, member of the elohim, and patron god of the iron age canaanite tribe called "Hebrews"?

The more I learn about all this stuff, the more amazed I am at how much the modern interpretations of the mythology fall apart.

Good ol' Yahweh and his girlfriend -- both of whom were, themselves, just two out of many other deities in the pantheon.  So much for monotheism.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #57 on: July 17, 2012, 08:45:11 AM »
Please just contribute your concepts of God as of evidence, and we can work out a mutually acceptable concept of God and also of evidence, in order to exchange thoughts on the existence or nonexistence of God.
The problem is that I do not agree that your definition of God, "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the entire universe", is logically consistent.  It contains several assumptions which need to be clarified.

What do you mean by saying that God is unique?

If God was uncreated, then where did he come from?

How do you know that God was uncreated?

Why must the universe have been created?

Why does the universe require an operator?

These are not loaded questions.  I am genuinely curious what your reasoning is, and I am not trying to play "gotcha!"