Creation and Causality

[DogmaHunter]

As stated, it is not incumbent upon me to provide evidence of God.

Except that it is... since you are claiming this god exists and said things.
What, you feel like your claims must just be accepted and believed - no questions asked?
You think that is reasonable?

It is incumbent upon God. God already has so done.

That is what you claim, yes, that this god exists and did/said things.
Any time you wish to support those claims in verifiable ways……………

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you'd need to define faith and knowledge first before I can adequately respond to this claim. I'd imagine that your concept of both may be different.

"faith" in the religious sense, is belief without independent verifiable evidence.

"Knowledge", are models of reality that ARE independently verifiable, and when verified they are confirmed.

But that's not what faith is. You are confusing faith with ignorance. Ignorance is unawareness. Faith simply communicates a "singular way of knowing". Sure, the former will lead to many models, the latter is constrained by trust in certain claim.

I wasn't describing "faith" there.

Faith is what you invoke to believe a claim when you have no evidence in support of such claim.

Because if you have evidence, then you don't need faith.

When I jump from a building, I know that I will fall down. I don't have "faith" that I'll fall down.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In several times/locations.

Did you need it to be presented in a written down format to be considered a factual account, or would you also accept oral?

Both would be anecdotal / hearsay.
Ie, not evidence but instead just a repeat of the claim.

For instance, since you seem to continually refer to the Bible [and its authorship], in Exodus 3:14 KJB, it is recorded as written testimony, that Moses personally witnessed God say this, but this was done before any such written account existed.

Yes, that is the claim. The claim is not evidence of itself.

Therefore, I am simply asking you, are you limiting the evidence you accept to only that which is written, and only to the Bible's account?

I would limit the range of acceptable evidence to those things that aren't fallacious, to start with.

Using the bible to support the bible, is circular reasoning.
What you read in the bible ARE the claims.

Since it is incumbent upon God, to make God known, in what ways would you expect for God to make God known? Would you accept something which is outside of what you would expect?

If this God is indeed an all-powerful, all-intelligent being, then I'ld guess that this God would know exactly what to do in order to convince us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

An "angel*" or a "devil" would not be "God", neither omniscient. Is it easier for you to accept these, and the evidence for these?

What evidence?

 

[The7thColporteur]

...If this God is indeed an all-powerful, all-intelligent being, then I'ld guess that this God would know exactly what to do in order to convince us.

Perfect. Thank you.

 

[The7thColporteur]

I know a person who exists.

Is it incumbent upon me or that person to prove they exist to you?

If I speak of their existence, would this also be anecdotal and hearsay and unnaccepted?

 

[Chriliman]

I know a person who exists.

Is it incumbent upon me or that person to prove they exist to you?

If I speak of their existence, would this also be anecdotal and hearsay and unnaccepted?

Depends if they want me to know they exist or if I want to know they exist. In either case, some form of proof is expected. However, there’s no obligation of proof if there’s no desire to know or make known from either side.

When it comes to God, His word became flesh and dwelled(s) among us. This is His way of proving Himself and His way of living to us, which is basically being loving and truthful towards one another. Why anyone would be opposed to this way of living is beyond me.

 

[HitchSlap]

Let's look at this from another angle.

Do you believe in beings [somewhat like yourself], but are non-human, that are benevolent and others malevolent? [ie. what are called 'angels' and 'devils', and 'a leader of devils']

An "angel*" or a "devil" would not be "God", neither omniscient. Is it easier for you to accept these, and the evidence for these?

Just asking.

Nope.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perfect. Thank you.

Here's the problem: this God you claim exists, is not doing anything of the sort.
So you can claim all you want that this God exists and that this God is all-powerful and what-not………… The fact is that those claims give you a burden of proof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know a person who exists.

Is it incumbent upon me or that person to prove they exist to you?

You. You're the one making the claim.

If I speak of their existence, would this also be anecdotal and hearsay and unnaccepted?

If all you do is speak / make claims, then yes it's anecdotal / hearsay.

How acceptable your anecdote is, depends how you describe said person.

For starters, humans demonstrably exist.
So the mere claim that "some specific human" exists is not at all an extra-ordinary claim.

However, if you then go on to describe this human as having super-powers, like being able to shoot laser beams with his eyes, then clearly you find yourself in very different territory.

That's not a claim that is acceptable at mere face value. The more extra-ordinary the claim, the stronger your evidence needs to be. Seems rather obvious.


I'll give you an example I like to use a lot.
Suppose I tell you that I saw a movie last night starring Jessica Alba.
Likely, you'll have no issue with that. You won't ask me for example to give you photographic evidence of me sitting in my couch, watching that movie.

Because you know movies exist, that Jessica Alba is an actress that stars in many movies and that people watch movies regularly. It's not an extra ordinary claim at all.

Now, suppose I go on to describe how at some point Jessica Alba crawled out of the TV set, made love to me and then crawled back into the TV to finish the movie...
Would you still find that an acceptable claim? Or would you now require solid evidence before you would deem such a claim as being acceptable?

I'll go ahead and assume that yes, you would need such evidence. In fact, more then likely you'll just assume that I am either lying or just crazy and hallucinating.



Now consider your God claim. That's a mega extra-ordinary claim. There are no verifiable instance of anything supernatural. There are no precedents of any such beings whatsoever. There are only claims and anecdotes.

So, all this just to make clear to you that not all claims are on equal footing.
For some claims, mere anecdote / testimony will be enough.
For others, solid evidence is absolutely required.

How much evidence, and how solid it should be, is directly proportional to how outlandish the claim is.

 

[The7thColporteur]

Nope.

How would you prove to me "you" exist over the internet?

 

[The7thColporteur]

...How much evidence, and how solid it should be, is directly proportional to how outlandish the claim is.

Sounds like selective hearing to me.

 

[HitchSlap]

How would you prove to me "you" exist over the internet?

Not only do I exist, but I can forgive your sins and give you eternal bliss.

 

[The7thColporteur]

Not only do I exist, but I can forgive your sins and give you eternal bliss.

You are God? I thought you said you did not believe in God?

 

[HitchSlap]

You are God? I thought you said you did not believe in God?

No, but you do. Convinced yet?

 

[The7thColporteur]

No, but you do. Convinced yet?

No, because you just told me a lie [and God is truth, and truth is eternal]. Only God can forgive sins. But you do not know why do you?

 

[HitchSlap]

No, because you just told me a lie [and God is truth, and truth is eternal]. Only God can forgive sins. But you do not know why do you?

I can too.

You are forgiven!

Proof I exist.

 

[The7thColporteur]

I can too.

You are forgiven!

Proof I exist.

I have another question on the matter of resurrection.

Do you believe in resurrection?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sounds like selective hearing to me.

Not at all.

Rather, sounds like "not all claims are on even footing".

Again:
claim 1: "i know a guy named bob"
claim 2: "i know a guy named bob and he can shoot laser beams with his eyes"

If you are honestly going to stand there and say that these claims are equal in "acceptability" at face value… Then I don't know what else to say.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have another question on the matter of resurrection.

Do you believe in resurrection?

I resurrect daily. What more need you know.