If God is real, how would you know?

[paddoboy]

Tho opening post asks a simple question to atheists.
If there is no God, how can you recognise evidence of God. You’re always going to come back to “there is no God”.

Tha's because we have no evidence of god/s and science has determined such a creature to be superfluous, at least back to t+10-43 seconds, and plenty of reasonable speculative stuff before that, based on data from particle accelerators and colliders.

Classic evasion.

That's been an obvious trait of yours, along with your other questionable "qualities"

There is actually , in Ancient History . Look it up , fascinating investigation .

Further back in written History than the Bible .

No there's not....Now find the so called evidence yourself and prove me wrong.
Oh and with reference to the bible, the best that can be said is that it is nothing but ancient obscure text, written by ancient obscure men, in an ancient obscure age. Cinderella is a better read and probably more to the style of you and Jan.

 

[river]

↑
There is actually , in Ancient History . Look it up , fascinating investigation .

Further back in written History than the Bible .

No there's not....Now find the so called evidence yourself and prove me wrong.
Oh and with reference to the bible, the best that can be said is that it is nothing but ancient obscure text, written by ancient obscure men, in an ancient obscure age. Cinderella is a better read and probably more to the style of you and Jan.

( Reference to highlighted )

How do you know " No there's not " .

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now you put that dumb picture in my head?
What did you do that for?

See it as chess moves.
I don’t think you have many moves, based on your worldview.

If there is no God.
No definition of God.
How can you recognise evidence for God?

If there is no evidence for God
No definition of God.
Based on a worldview where there is a lack of, and or a disbelief in God.
How can you recognise evidence for God?

If finally you accept evidence for God
What would that evidence have to entail?
It wouldn’t be based on any definition of God.
It wouldn’t be based on theistic philosophy. Because you don’t accept either of them.
It wouldn’t be based on the the design of structures, as there is evidence that structures weren’t designed, according to the evidence.
You think the ID lot are liars, based on evidence.

If you accept the evidence, and you become theists. Then we would have been right all along. You would no longer be an atheist, you would be a theist.

So what could evidence of God possibly look like for an atheist.

 

[paddoboy]

See it as chess moves.
I don’t think you have many moves, based on your worldview.

If there is no God.
No definition of God.
How can you recognise evidence for God?

Bullshit. There are no unicorns.
We do have a definition of unicorns.
Conclusion: Jan is again redefining words and paragraphs to suit his own agenda.
Therefor....
There is no evidence of god/s.
God/s is defined as a supernatural ancient myth, fabricated to explain the wonders of the universe and life.

You think the ID lot are liars, based on evidence.

No, I don't believe all IDers are liars like yourself.
The rest of your senseless rhetoric is simply redefining of sentences, words etc, to support the myth you chose to believe in.

 

[river]

Bullshit. There are no unicorns.
We do have a definition of unicorns.
Conclusion: Jan is again redefining words and paragraphs to suit his own agenda.
Therefor....
There is no evidence of god/s.
God/s is defined as a supernatural ancient myth, fabricated to explain the wonders of the universe and life.

No, I don't believe all IDers are liars like yourself.
The rest of your senseless rhetoric is simply redefing of senetnces, words etc, to support the myth you chose to believe in.

pad the Sophist . The lawyer .

You have written more senseless rhetoric than anyone .

 

[paddoboy]

pad the Sophist . The lawyer .

Neither...Pad the realist, retired tradesperson with a reasonable education, and a gift for recognising bullshit such as yours.

You have written more senseless rhetoric than anyone .

And yet here I am, making nice contributions to the science threads, while you linger in the fringes.

 

[paddoboy]

So what could evidence of God possibly look like for an atheist.

The same as it should look like for any reasonable human being, based on the definition of this so called creature that is omnipotent and all powerful, and should be recognised by performing things like raising all the dead, parting the Pacific Ocean, and/or performing other stunts that defy known physical laws.

 

[river]

Neither...Pad the realist, retired tradesperson with a reasonable education, and a gift for recognising bullshit such as yours.

And yet here I am, making nice contributions to the science threads, while you linger in the fringes.

There is only nice when it fits your thinking .

After that , well we all know where that goes , insults ...the lot. .... To no avail though . I would have thought you would have learned that by now , but no .

 

[paddoboy]

There is only nice when it fits your thinking .

My thinking is based on evidence and the scientific methodology.

After that , well we all know where that goes , insults ...the lot. .... To no avail though . I would have thought you would have learned that by now , but no .

I give as good as I get river. You have also often in the past when shown to be gullible in swallowing whatever some nut has told you, responded with your own insults.
Anyway, enough of this with you, its pretty demeaning.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God/s is defined as a supernatural ancient myth, fabricated to explain the wonders of the universe and life.

Supernatural, yes.
Explanation of the wonders of universe and life, yes.
These at least define some aspects of God.
Ancient myth, no.
A fabrication, no.
These are belief statements regarding the definitions.

The rest of your senseless rhetoric is simply redefing of senetnces, words etc, to support the myth you chose to believe in.

How can I “redefine” my own sentences .
Are you afraid to to respond to them?
Scared they will reveal the fact that your belief is controlled by your subconscious worldview.
That maybe you really are holding on to a rejection and denial of God.
Why don’t you explain to us what you would accept as evidence of God, that can only be attributed to God. Without the CGI bs.

 

[paddoboy]

Supernatural, yes.
Explanation of the wonders of universe and life, yes.
These at least define some aspects of God.
Ancient myth, no.
A fabrication, no.
These are belief statements regarding the definitions.

Actually all yes. And we can add a total myth also...you know, something for which we have no evidence for and is simply not needed, superfluous?

How can I “redefine” my own sentences .

The same as you have redefined many other words to support your god/s agenda?

Are you afraid to to respond to them?
Scared they will reveal the fact that your belief is controlled by your subconscious worldview.
That maybe you really are holding on to a rejection and denial of God.

I have no say or responsibility in whatever delusions you chose to grovel in...that's your problem.

Why don’t you explain to us what you would accept as evidence of God, that can only be attributed to God. Without the CGI bs.

I already have, twice......

In line with the thread title, "If God was real, how would you know" I would expect him to raise from the dead, every person that has ever lived: I would expect him to part the Pacific Ocean and let me walk to Fiji...I would expect him to enable me to travel from one end of the universe to the other...I would expect him to grab a handful of mud, breath on it, and have it change into Nana Mouskouri.
I would expect him to do things that went entirely against physical law. But none of that is going to happen, and the staus quo remains as is...that is we have no evidence for any god/s or any other supernatural nonsense...zero, zilch, nada!

Jesus Christ, perhaps I need to apologise to you Jan...perhaps you are not as dishonest as I imagine? It does now increasingly look like dementia. Take it easy.

 

[arfa brane]

There is no evidence of god/s.
God/s is defined as a supernatural ancient myth, fabricated to explain the wonders of the universe and life.

But why should anyone just believe that? Why not define God as not being an ancient myth, or even the creator of the universe?

That would, it seems to me, then obviate the science problem. Hell, (sorry), you could even define God as being something which can't be described in words, so is not "definable" in a linguistic sense. No, to define that which can't be defined, you need a different language I say. That would be a language which is neither written nor spoken; maybe you can read it though.

See if you can find the hole in that one.

 

[river]

My thinking is based on evidence and the scientific methodology.

I give as good as I get river. You have also often in the past when shown to be gullible in swallowing whatever some nut has told you, responded with your own insults.
Anyway, enough of this with you, its pretty demeaning.

To your last statement , BS . pad .

Answering me gives you meaning .

 

[paddoboy]

To your last statement , BS . pad .

Answering me gives you meaning .

No river, sorry old mate old friend, you obviously are ignorant of the word "demeaning"..
Let me help you.......
https://www.google.com/search?q=dem.....69i57j0l7.4127j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

demeaning:
causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others.

As in its demeaning for me, to actively engage someone as ignorant as yourself.

 

[river]

No river, sorry old mate old friend, you obviously are ignorant of the word "demeaning"..
Let me help you.......
https://www.google.com/search?q=dem.....69i57j0l7.4127j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

demeaning:
causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others.

As in its demeaning for me, to actively engage someone as ignorant as yourself.

If you feel that strongly about me , then don't post in my threads and/or responses in other threads . Simple to eliminate any demeaning feelings you have .

 

[paddoboy]

If you feel that strongly about me , then don't post in my threads and/or responses in other threads . Simple to eliminate any demeaning feelings you have .

I don't feel anything about you river, except some pity that you are so bloody gullible. And of course this isn't your thread, and even if you start a thread, promoting unevidenced nonsense and pseudoscience, as a forum member, I will refute and debunk, when and where I can.
Your problem as you well know, is that you were bringing your pseudscience into the mainstream science threads.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
If you feel that strongly about me , then don't post in my threads and/or responses in other threads . Simple to eliminate any demeaning feelings you have .

I don't feel anything about you river, except some pity that you are so bloody gullible. And of course this isn't your thread, and even if you start a thread, promoting unevidenced nonsense and pseudoscience, as a forum member, I will refute and debunk, when and where I can.
Your problem as you well know, is that you were bringing your pseudscience into the mainstream science threads.

Stop demeaning yourself . Its not healthy .

 

[paddoboy]

Stop demeaning yourself . Its not healthy .

But you are gullible! You were once pushing the fairy tale story of an atomic war on Mars between alien species.
And your ignorance is obvious in that you did not even know what demean meant.

Some advice river...sit back, get your nose out of pseudoscience books, and learn some real science, and the fact that it is governed by the scientific method and is always in eternal progress.

 

[river]

But you are gullible! You were once pushing the fairy tale story of an atomic war on Mars between alien species.
And your ignorance is obvious in that you did not even know what demean meant.

Some advice river...sit back, get your nose out of pseudoscience books, and learn some real science, and the fact that it is governed by the scientific method and is always in eternal progress.

Your more gullible than you think I am , pad . You just have have to accept it .

Old ways of thinking are not the thinking by brilliant minds in the now .

 

[paddoboy]

Your more gullible than you think I am , pad . You just have have to accept it .

Old ways of thinking are not the thinking by brilliant minds in the now .

I'm sorry river...I hereby bow to your brilliant mind!