And they say, "There's no Evidence ... !!!"

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course, that's easy to say when everyone has their eyes wide shut! So, add some evidence to the world, fellow Christians......RESIST and send the ball back into the court of all the Counterfeits & Revolutionaries!!!

...it's time to get the Enlightenment out of our heads, wherever it sheds! (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

What does that mean? It means it's time to lay down your piece and pick up your Peace in Christ! And that's Revelation! Not revolution!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

If God is real, there should be evidence of it. Lots of evidence. Overpowering amounts of evidence.
But you don't have it, do you?
How strange.

 

[Moral Orel]

If God is real, there should be evidence of it. Lots of evidence. Overpowering amounts of evidence.

Even as an unbeliever myself, I have to say this is nonsense. If an omnipotent being wants to hide, it would be trivial for him to do so.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Empirical Evidence - Verifiable Faith - Homeschool 101

Ep. 133: Why There's Good Reason to Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead - A Clear Lens

 

[InterestedAtheist]

.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Even as an unbeliever myself, I have to say this is nonsense. If an omnipotent being wants to hide, it would be trivial for him to do so.

I did actually think of that as I was writing. But it was my understanding that the Christian God, as people generally believe in Him, is not thought to be hiding Himself.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Empirical Evidence - Verifiable Faith - Homeschool 101

Ep. 133: Why There's Good Reason to Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead - A Clear Lens

Thank you. And what would you say is the strongest argument for God's existence?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Thank you. And what would you say is the strongest argument for God's existence?

the Bible?

the Miracles it credibly reports?

The credibly reported Resurrection?

Why do we get to dismiss thousands of years of credible eyewitness testimony? And Reports and witnessing of miraculous anomalous paranormal Events?

There's lots of evidence far far more that you would reasonably expect if. There was no God in heaven intervening Into. human history on Earth.

 

[Moral Orel]

I did actually think of that as I was writing. But it was my understanding that the Christian God, as people generally believe in Him, is not thought to be hiding Himself.

Sure He is, you have to "seek" Him, so He must be hiding.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Sure He is, you have to "seek" Him, so He must be hiding.

romans 1:20

 

[InterestedAtheist]

the Miracles it credibly reports?

Hmmm. Please give me an example of one such miracle (apart from the Resurrection, which I'll write about below) and explain why you think it is credible.

The credibly reported Resurrection?

I'd like to ask: when were the gospels written?

Why do we get to dismiss thousands of years of credible eyewitness testimony? And Reports and witnessing of miraculous anomalous paranormal Events?

I'd be interested to hear about them.

There's lots of evidence far far more that you would reasonably expect if. There was no God in heaven intervening into human history on Earth.

I shall be most interested to hear of it too!

 

[gaara4158]

the Bible?

the Miracles it credibly reports?

The credibly reported Resurrection?

Why do we get to dismiss thousands of years of credible eyewitness testimony? And Reports and witnessing of miraculous anomalous paranormal Events?

There's lots of evidence far far more that you would reasonably expect if. There was no God in heaven intervening Into. human history on Earth.

What makes the Bible credible?

 

[Erik Nelson]

What makes the Bible credible?

what makes any ancient historical document credible?

 

[gaara4158]

what makes any ancient historical document credible?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God is real, there should be evidence of it. Lots of evidence. Overpowering amounts of evidence.
But you don't have it, do you?
How strange.

Likewise, I could ask if you were able to watch the video in the OP and we could both ponder over the epistemic complications that would be obviously expressed when you answer in the negative. Then I would ask, what are the reasons you didn't see it or consider it? And I imagine you'd say that you couldn't even if you wanted to because ...

... but don't worry about answering this comment of mine, because I'm aware that there is a menagerie of perceptual and hermeneutical problems involved in how any one person who is in China and in a culturally predisposed and politically arbitrated position such as YOUR's, as it presently exists, which play into his ability to find relevance in the things I speak of. Obviously, some of this is out of your control.

But perhaps I digress too much here. I'll just ask you why you think there should be lots of overpowering evidence, everywhere? How so? Who told you or me that God would work in and through the very epistemic assumptions that we hold so dear as a central part of our Modern notions of scientific discovery or investigation? Did Carl Sagan, bless his heart, have the correct evaluative method by which we would ascertain the existence of the Biblical concept of God? Well, despite the prowess of someone like the late Sagan, I'm thinking that he did not and that his "Dragon in the Garage" analogy falls short ... if God isn't, and for the most part hasn't been, working with our current assumptions of apperception.

So, do I have "evidence" of the kind you'd like to see as so defined by today's Modern parlance? No, I don't. But that wouldn't then be to also say that WE have zero evidence of any kind whatsoever. No, we have evidence, it's just not of the type that we prefer to have today, nor is it manifested in ways that we're conditioned to look for, and if we want to 'see' or 'understand' the kind(s) of evidence that God has given indication that He would give, then it probably goes without saying that we'll have to learn and abide by those epistemic pathways by which the Lord has said that we'd have to move through in order to gain a cognitive state of understanding.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Likewise, I could ask if you were able to watch the video in the OP and we could both ponder over the epistemic complications that would be obviously expressed when you answer in the negative. Then I would ask, what are the reasons you didn't see it or consider it? And I imagine you'd say that you couldn't even if you wanted to because ...

... but don't worry about answering this comment of mine, because I'm aware that there is a menagerie of perceptual and hermeneutical problems involved in how any one person who is in China and in a culturally predisposed and politically arbitrated position such as YOUR's, as it presently exists, which play into his ability to find relevance in the things I speak of. Obviously, some of this is out of your control.

But perhaps I digress too much here. I'll just ask you why you think there should be lots of overpowering evidence, everywhere? How so? Who told you or me that God would work in and through the very epistemic assumptions that we hold so dear as a central part of our Modern notions of scientific discovery or investigation? Did Carl Sagan, bless his heart, have the correct evaluative method by which we would ascertain the existence of the Biblical concept of God? Well, despite the prowess of someone like the late Sagan, I'm thinking that he did not and that his "Dragon in the Garage" analogy falls short ... if God isn't, and for the most part hasn't been, working with our current assumptions of apperception.

So, do I have "evidence" of the kind you'd like to see as so defined by today's Modern parlance? No, I don't. But that wouldn't then be to also say that WE have zero evidence of any kind whatsoever. No, we have evidence, it's just not of the type that we prefer to have today, nor is it manifested in ways that we're conditioned to look for, and if we want to 'see' or 'understand' the kind(s) of evidence that God has given indication that He would give, then it probably goes without saying that we'll have to learn and abide by those epistemic pathways by which the Lord has said that we'd have to move through in order to gain a cognitive state of understanding.

This is hilarious.
You took three hundred and eighty-nine words to say:
a. You shouldn't ask for evidence of something being true.
b. You do have evidence of God being real.
c. You won't share it, because I wouldn't understand it.

So, in this thread, we have two approaches. We have Erik Nelson's "Of course God exists, it says so in the Bible!" and 2PhiloVoid's "Of course God exists, but why should I tell you why?"
Erik's is going to fail because "The Bible said so" isn't proof of anything, and Philo's is going to fail because not giving an answer is an admission that you have no answer to give.

 

[Moral Orel]

and Philo's is going to fail because not giving an answer is an admission that you have no answer to give.

Again, wrong. If Philo wants to hide things from you, that is a trivial task.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Only if he wants to cede the claim that he has evidence to show.

 

[Moral Orel]

Only if he wants to cede the claim that he has evidence to show.

I wasn't joking. If he's hiding evidence from you, or if he has no evidence at all, you cannot know which it is. If he said, "There is no evidence" you wouldn't know he isn't lying about that either.

You're drawing conclusions that you can't make. If you want to tell the Christians that they shouldn't come to the conclusion that God exists because they can't demonstrate it rationally, you shouldn't be drawing conclusions that you can't rationally demonstrate, such as claiming that Philo is lying. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only if he wants to cede the claim that he has evidence to show.

... the truth is, I don't know if I have evidence I can "show" you. Since in my mind the act of "showing evidence" is not only a complex process, but it is also one that requires bilateral interlocution rather than simply being an undertaking of a mere unilateral process where I produce some said Christian phenomenon or theological artifact or logical conclusion, or what have you.

Explain to me what you think counts as "evidence" for the Christian faith and as to why that kind of exemplary entity of evidence is indeed the only example or set of examples that anyone should count as evidence. The upshot of this is that even if you do so, you'll then need to explain why nothing other than those examples apply and what a distinct and clear "showing" of that same evidence achieves. Can you do this without evading my request for you to do so? I have to ask since, epistemically speaking, what I'm requesting should naturally come prior to your asking me for said evidence. If you can do this, then we can probably begin to actual have a conversation. Otherwise, you give me little in the way of any clearly designated target for me to even attempt any relevance; and if you can't muster this, then I might as well just shoot clay pigeons with you while blindfolded.

Surely you can do this for me, even if just to be a good sport, especially since after I've already dropped some hints along the way, spotting you a few places by which to hop along with me from epistemic lilly-pad to epistemic lilly-pad.

If you can't do this, then there's no reason for me to try to explain what will most likely continue to be deemed by you as dissonance and "Mere Christian Noise."