Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[DaveC426913]

How did you come to that conclusion based on what I said?

As youve previously conceded, you have no way of being sure your beliefs exist outside your own head.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"They're all mad, save thee and me. And thee I'm none to sure about."

 

[Pinball1970]

I’m beginning to wonder if you’re not some disgruntled theist who despises the whole concept of God, on an emotional level.

No but by all means start a thread on that and I will contribute.

 

[Trek]

Why? Because I like you!

You started this thread because you like me?
Ok

And I'm ass deep in Arkansas fundy hillbillies who parrot bible-thumper TV celebs.

Is this your way of getting back at them?

I don't define fictional beings.

Why not?

Because there's no proof fictional beings exist.

By definition you’re correct.
But what makes you think God is fictional?

That would require an impossibility you are NOT capable of.

Not really. I can define the avengers, both Tom, and Jerry even. You can define anything you like.

Your definition is tedious, trite, and the same old BS that has proven NOTHING after centuries of making claims.

Well I’m sorry it doesn’t meet your evidential requirements, but that does not answer the question of why you think God is a fictional character, or what evidence you would find acceptable.

So what is tedious and trite about mine, or any theist definition and evidence of God. And why don’t you accept them??

 

[Pinball1970]

Why?
The questions I ask is related to this thread, and is not a new thread subject matter. They are very simple, and you guys should easily answer them.
So this or any thread where atheists stipulate there is no evidence for God without explaining why you think there is no evidence/proof, and what would evidence would allow you to accept that God is real

I have one criticism of this site and all the others I have been on. That is the fact that the titles are not respected. So a newcomer checks out a thread, say, "Prove your god is real," and instead of getting comments regarding, the creation, fine tuning, complexity of life and scripture, they get some atheist talking about why they don't believe.

I am happy to talk about why I reject all arguments for god, just start a new thread and respect this one.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You do know the last atheist that posed in this thread was the OP?

 

[Trek]

I have one criticism of this site and all the others I have been on. That is the fact that the titles are not respected. So a newcomer checks out a thread, say, "Prove your god is real," and instead of getting comments regarding, the creation, fine tuning, complexity of life and scripture, they get some atheist talking about why they don't believe.

I am happy to talk about why I reject all arguments for god, just start a new thread and respect this one.

I’m not asking you or anyone to reject the argument. I’m asking what do you think God is, and why you believe/think there is no evidence? Is it a personal reason?
And what would you accept as evidence?
If rejecting the evidence is integral to your answer then that’s ok. But I’m not really interested in a thread where we debate does god exist. They are boring af.
I just want to know what you’re all talking about with regard to God. You could easily just respond to this post with that info, so I know if we’re on the right track.
But if you continue to dodge then I’ll know we aren’t talking about the same concept.

 

[Trek]

Provide some specifics, please, if you want to examine this further.
More generally, if a piece of evidence supports both the claim and the counter-claim equally then it is of no help in moving the dial toward one or the other.

It’s just the norm cosmological, teleological, argument from complexity. I do regard those as evidence. But I’m not interested at the moment in trying to prove evidence of God’s existence.
See it as throwing my hat in the ring, responding to what the OP may have meant instead of asking for proof.
But I noticed that the a at least a couple of atheists on here are very reluctant to answer my questions. I find this very telling. Plus I’ll know they’re not talking about the Almighty God (as well as gods) is is litererally states in bothe designations Theist (Theos) Which literally means belief in God., and God also figures in Atheist (a Theos) Which literally means without a belief in God. The Greeks had an understanding of God, and gods. It means something very profound whether you believe or not. This thread, and other threads do not discuss God in the proper way. They talk disparagingly about God on purpose. Why?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

See it as throwing my hat in the ring, responding to what the OP may have meant instead of asking for proof.

I said what I said. Wander off into the Tugley Wood if you wish to start a thread on what I MEANT so say.

 

[foghorn]

If anyone is wondering about Trek’s and Jan Ardena’s interest in sound vibrations, it’s all to do with “ The Bible states that, in the beginning was the Word (sound), and the Word (sound), was God. “
My bold below.

I showed sound vibration transformed those random particles into complex patterns and shapes. The Bible states that, in the beginning was the Word (sound), and the Word (sound), was God.

I used that avatar to explain to one of you guys how things can instantly form by using sound vibration, as opposed to some ridiculously slow step by step process that occurred over a kazillion years. …...
….And I hope you entertain the possibility that all anotomical structures could have been formed this way, instantaneously.

 

[Sarkus]

It’s just the norm cosmological, teleological, argument from complexity. I do regard those as evidence. But I’m not interested at the moment in trying to prove evidence of God’s existence.

They're not evidence. They're arguments. Arguments can be logically valid without any actual evidence, and be entirely worthless beyond the validity of their form.
E.g. P1: All bananas play cricket.
P2: Fred is a banana.
C: therefore Fred plays cricket.

What is this argument evidence for?

I don't blame you for not trying to prove evidence of God's existence. For those who don't already believe that God exists it won't be evidence for God, but for non-God.
Unless you define God in a manner that begs the question. E.g. God is everything, therefore everything is evidence for God.
I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, or would do, just preempting.

See it as throwing my hat in the ring, responding to what the OP may have meant instead of asking for proof.
But I noticed that the a at least a couple of atheists on here are very reluctant to answer my questions. I find this very telling. Plus I’ll know they’re not talking about the Almighty God (as well as gods) is is litererally states in bothe designations Theist (Theos) Which literally means belief in God., and God also figures in Atheist (a Theos) Which literally means without a belief in God. The Greeks had an understanding of God, and gods. It means something very profound whether you believe or not. This thread, and other threads do not discuss God in the proper way. They talk disparagingly about God on purpose. Why?

Maybe start your own thread to ask and discuss that question.
Advice: if you don't like the premise of a thread, just say you don't agree with it, explain why, then move on and leave them to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Would you believe God is real if evidence that God is real was presented to you?

Evidence is a broad spectrum.

Some types of evidence are very weak; lending itself to an array of explanations. Testimonials and anecdotal documentation are weak.
Some types of evidence are strong; it can be tested by independent studies, in controlled conditions, and repeatably.

Naturally, you know that just any old evidence will not do. God is, by most accounts, a pretty big deal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why do you ask such a hypothetical question? Unless you're going to do an about face, there isn't going to be any evidence presented, but I would very much enjoy being wrong.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Would you believe God is read if bad evidence that God is real was presented to you?

You know, like pretty much everything said about or attributed to your god.

 

[Pinball1970]

I’m not asking you or anyone to reject the argument. I’m asking what do you think God is, and why you believe/think there is no evidence? Is it a personal reason?

I think men made up gods. I did a thread called "losing my religion."
It's all in there.

 

[Sarkus]

I think men made up gods. I did a thread called "losing my religion."
It's all in there.

Man has inferred the existence of many things prior to them being confirmed, such as black holes (as well as many things that were subsequently proven incorrect). So inferring something is itself not justification for rejecting the concept.

The more significant question is on what basis is it being inferred. If one rejects a premise then the conclusion, the inference, might not make sense to you. Or one might think that rather than the data inferring A it instead infers B.
But unless you can actually disprove it, can you say that their inference is wrong? It doesn't mean they are necessarily right, of course. You may not accept or believe their conclusion, nor they yours.
And so the impasse remains, as it always will.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Man has also inferred the existence of some other crazy shit. Doesn't mean they will ever be confirmed.

That was a really lame argument, btw.

 

[Pinball1970]

Man has inferred the existence of many things prior to them being confirmed, such as black holes (as well as many things that were subsequently proven incorrect). So inferring something is itself not justification for rejecting the concept.

I do not think that is a great analogy. Black holes were theorized using the physics and mathematics of the day. Those theories developed over time before indirect empirical evidence presented itself then finally more direct evidence in 2019.
Similar stories with particles, planets and other science phenomena.

Explaining thunder with a god or disease, birth, death, sunrise, earthquakes and eclipses had no basis in scientific enquiry other than a phenomena happened, "It must be *insert god here.*"

 

[Pinball1970]

Man has inferred the existence of many things prior to them being confirmed, such as black holes (as well as many things that were subsequently proven incorrect). So inferring something is itself not justification for rejecting the concept.

The more significant question is on what basis is it being inferred. If one rejects a premise then the conclusion, the inference, might not make sense to you. Or one might think that rather than the data inferring A it instead infers B.
But unless you can actually disprove it, can you say that their inference is wrong? It doesn't mean they are necessarily right, of course. You may not accept or believe their conclusion, nor they yours.
And so the impasse remains, as it always will.

My more detailed rejection is in the thread, "losing my religion."

 

[Pinball1970]

This thread, my warnings, and my bans are a testament to that.

No your warnings are because of pretending you do not understand posts, lying and calling people liars ie projecting, trolling and misrepresenting science with creationist garbage.

 

[Trek]

You didn't provide a conclusion, just a cluster F***.

They're not evidence. They're arguments.

Arguments based on evidence. The Big Bang theory being an obvious example

I don't blame you for not trying to prove evidence of God's existence.

I can’t prove God’s existence. There’s no trying.
Furthermore nobody can prove anything, and we see that explanations of scientific evidence is just as subjective as as explanations for God without reverting to scientific evidence.
We only have these discussions about evidence and proof because there are people who argue that there is no God, and that science is the only way to obtain knowledge/truth.

For those who don't already believe that God exists it won't be evidence for God, but for non-God.

I agree.

Unless you define God in a manner that begs the question. E.g. God is everything, therefore everything is evidence for God.
I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, or would do, just preempting.

I understand what is meant by “God is everything” but it requires more than that phrase to bring it to a point where we can all understand what meant by that.
But as a stand alone statement, I see your point.

Maybe start your own thread to ask and discuss that question.
Advice: if you don't like the premise of a thread, just say you don't agree with it, explain why, then move on and leave them to it.

It is due to this thread why I ask the questions I do. If people cannot answer those simple questions I posed, in this thread, then I doubt they will in another thread.