Probably I should provide a general definition of "evidence". From the Oxford English Dictionary, we have: evidence (n.) the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. This seems like a reasonable jumping-off point. Musika is telling me that the evidence for God is not empirical. So, I am wondering what non-empirical body of facts or information might exist, regarding God. To take one example, both Jan and Musika have suggested that "scripture" constitutes a relevant body of facts or information that helps to justify believe in God. I am wondering how the factual nature of the scriptures is independently established, insofar as the facts pertain to God? The problem with scripture is that all scriptures appear to have been written by people, and there is a lot of evidence that some people write fiction. There are claims of divine inspiration, of course, but how are we to verify the truth of such claims? Empiricism is ruled out, Musika tells me. Jan Ardena claims to know that scriptures provide facts about God, but he has always refused to explain where that knowledge comes from. I'm hoping that our resident theists can shed some light as to which bodies of fact or source of information they have relied on themselves to verify the truth of their God beliefs.
Jan Ardena: Where have I misrepresented your position? This is a regular complaint of yours, but all you do is make the complaint, rather than correcting my supposed errors by stating your true position and showing where I was wrong. We're almost 400 posts into this thread and the theists have presented virtually nothing in the way of actual evidence for their beliefs. I've seen lots of excuses as to why they (you) can't do it. Apparently, I won't recognise your evidence as such. Apparently, my epistemology is wrong. Apparently I need to share your belief before I look at any evidence. And so it goes. In the meantime, you're failing to present any evidence at all, even on your own terms. Is it all smoke and mirrors, this claim that you know God is real? Is your claim based on anything? Read the opening post again. My invitation to theists was simple. Present your evidence on your terms. Don't worry about trying to convince me, for now. Don't be frightened of big old me. I assure you I won't bite you if I personally find your evidence unconvincing. What's the harm in presenting it, if you actually have any? Why do you suddenly feel the need to convince me? You've told me many times that you don't give a damn whether you convince me of anything. But now you're all coy about gaining my approval? You are a theist by choice. Is that a problem for you? For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter. Present what you regard as evidence. Be my guest. You say it is true that God is real. I'm asking you to present evidence that tends to support that conclusion. I am interested in whether you have any such evidence. If you manage to present some evidence, and that establishes that the statement "God is real" is true, then I will be very interested, I assure you. If I wasn't interested in the truth, I wouldn't have started the thread. Understand? That would be a good start, if it's the best you have to offer. I asked for evidence, remember, not presupposition. Are you telling me that one has to presuppose that he is not separate from God in order to believe that there is evidence for God? You and Musika seem to put a lot of preconditions on presenting your evidence. Why don't you both just show us what you've got? Why do you need to insist that I be in a correct frame of mind before you present any evidence? Are you concerned that I will laugh at your evidence otherwise, or something like that? Don't you think you're both being a bit fragile about this? It's almost as if you doubt the strength of whatever it is that you think you have. I take it that's a "no", then. Correct? It's interesting that you use the word "independent" here. Independent of what? Are you telling me that evidence of God is dependent on something? Dependent on what? Perhaps you're saying that the evidence for God is dependent on the viewer's belief in God, such that only a believer will recognise the evidence as evidence. Is that it? Or perhaps you're back to the vague claim that everything is evidence of God, because without God there would be nothing. Thus, the evidence for God is dependent on begging the question. We have to start by assuming the conclusion the evidence is supposed to support. Is that it? I believe I am responding to you in this post. See the quotes of what you wrote, followed by my responses? If you think you need to define God, do so by all means. But this just looks like a delaying tactic to me. Are you going to present any evidence, or not? I must say, I'm not optimistic at this point. We're almost 400 posts into the thread and there's very little to show for it. How could they know that? This thread isn't really about atheist denial. Stop trying to shift the focus. Take it to the Psychology of theists and atheists thread, maybe. In this thread, I want to discuss the evidence for the God that theists accept and believe in. Do you have any?
Because it doesn't work. And even if you think it does, how can you be sure it's not just a product of your own mind and nothing else?
On the contrary, if one was not approaching the definition of God as given by God, its not clear how one would be doing anything but producing such things through one's mind.
And since there is no definition of God as given by God - - - - (Making sense is risky business, even by accident)
When did God provide a definition as opposed to definitions offerred by humans. In any event are you able to offer a definition that you consider God has given? Alex
Love the visual of god going around planting conceptions of himself in people's brains Sloppy job though Seems he missed a few billion Or is a case of another god got there first? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
God hasn’t missed anyone. Everyone who’s ever existed has had a conception of God, it’s in our DNA. Fom a Google search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene God just wants to express its many faces through all of its creations.
If God did provide such information, why wouldn't you expect it to take the form of testimony by saintly persons (or scripture,) ?
Stop the world RIGHT NOW Get god down here to explain why he missed ME when he was handing out the god gene Was he to busy, or distracted, at the time I should have received my god, by counting falling sparrows? So please can anybody who has some spare time get out and look for my VMAT2 Sorry I don't know what it looks like or if it has my name attached I will pay the postage for its return Perhaps someone from Ancestry.com can help out here? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because he is made up inside the minds of said middlemen, who in truth are the originators Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You've had a conception of God in your dreams but you just can't recall it. Just Google dream recall so you can catch it the next time it comes around.
You assume the problem can be assessed as an issue of reciprocation between two sincere parties and having parameters determined by mere obedience.
There should be no problems where God is concerned. If God wanted to be known and understood by all, it should be able to do so in a direct fashion. No games, no secret handshakes, and no shady middlemen. Because it said on Wikipedia that human beings have a God gene, which means everyone must have a conception of God. If you don’t consciously remember your conception of God, then you must have dreamt about it. God visits everyone in their dreams, it’s just that we don’t always remember or recognize it. Sometime God shows up in dreams symbolically, so you have to know what to look for. More facts on God from Google. https://godencounters.com/god-is-speaking-in-your-dreams/
Amongst two sincere parties, I would agree. However when a bit of smug bastardry is introduced, things necessarily become a bit more complex.
Two sincere parties? The issue is between God and all of humanity. If such a being was evident, we wouldn’t be treating the condition of its absence as the joke it appears to be.
One reason would be that you claim it does, and all your posting here is dishonest and deceptive. There is also the fact that you have access to the testimony of saintly persons and scripture, but are nevertheless unable to provide that information - that informs our expectations. But the central matter is that it isn't there. And you reveal your underlying awareness of that fact by couching a false claim that it is in deceptive language: you hide the claim behind a bullshit "if". So the only substantial question remains: why do overt Abrahamic theists post like that on science forums? - - - - That would put God in the business of deception and swindle and self-contradiction and venal bs in the service of despotism. By that token, God would have the same status as a universal optical illusion - the checkerboard illusion, say. In the case of reality as observed, it isn't everyone - so God's genetic status would compare more directly to an environmentally mediated genetic propensity or vulnerability.
