Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Still waiting on your evidence.You say: "One simple google search later: Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
That is all in your mind, in the realm of concepts.
You have to look for evidence also and in most particular outside your mind, in the objectival realm of everyday's life and work and leisure and babies and the nose in our face and the sun in the day sky and the moon in the evening sky, etc., you get the idea?
But in your mind, there are also instances of evidence which are all truisms, like The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
Or that A thing either exists or not.
Such truisms are in our mind and they are evidence for us to conclude i.e. to infer as to reach the certainty that non-existence is never and nowhere ever any default status of things in the totality of reality:
Wherefore a human being cannot proceed at all from the fundamental premise of nothingness, as when you posit nothingness as the default status of things in the totality of reality, then logically you have to already consider yourself as part of nothingness.
Consequently you keep inside the silence of nothingness, unless of course you want to play the paradoxical fiction of nothingness as somethingness i.e. existence - and that is total illogic.
Dear atheists, please do more reading from very serious literature on evidence, and let you know that evidence is not into propositions except that the propositions are into the existence of an act or an object in the realm of things in the concrete world of babies, nose in our face, shooting in the school campus, etc., including the existence of God, in concept as as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Now, atheists here, please give instances of no evidence by which you conclude to the falsity of the existence of God, and of course what is your information on the concept of God which you deny there is evidence to the truth of the existence of God, based on my thinking on reason and observation.
Or as I see you to be into next, your explanation for the existence of babies, namely, because there is a law of gravity, then babies could and did come about in the ultimate terms.
Or that there is the randomness of events, so the universe happens, that is all.
Don't forget your evidence for the law of gravity, and also as there is a law, then there is an author of the law.
And don't forget to produce evidence of how randomness brings forth into existence anything at all - but best, present your proposition on how randomness exists at all outside your mind.
Is English your first language?Here is what I know about evidence after several years of dealing with evidence - in plain language:
"Evidnece is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
For example, I just read something about a man who died in suspicious circumstances, and investigators found traces of sperm in his anus, from which they have evidence that there was sex action of this subject with another human subject.
Now, dear atheists, please present your stock knowledge of evidence and one example.
Loudmouth, you say, "Just get to the evidence already."
Here, first evidence is of two kinds, in term of venue: in the conceptual realm, in the objectival realm.
In the conceptual realm which is in our mind, an example is this truism, namely, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence; you concur to that with me - thanks.
In the objectival realm which is all things which surround us in everyday's life and work and leisure, etc., for examples the nose in our face, babies, stones, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the night sky, etc., you get the idea.
______________
I am hoping that we two can have a sensible thus viable exchange, with getting linked as to not talk past each other's head.
Here goes, my attempt to get linked with you.
You see, I ask you for your information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist, and also pieces of evidence the absence of which is the ground by which you conclude to the non-existence of God.
You say you accept the concept of God as per my offer of information to you, see below.
Now, in regard to evidence, I have already expatiated on evidence passim in this thread, see below.
So, see if I can read something from you, in pursuit of us two getting linked up as to achieve a sensible and thus viable connection, on the issue God exists or not.
Write up of my brief exposition on God and evidence for God:
Now, Loudmouth, I will tell you that for myself as a theist, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
And for pieces of evidence which I see all around me everyday and everywhere, I will just mention the nose in our face which is not going to fall off uncertainly, babies, the sun in the day sky, and the moon in the evening sky, etc., all which lead me to infer to the existence of God in per concept above, you get the idea.
What exactly is evidence in regard to the existence of God as per concept above?
It is anything at all that we know in everyday’s life and work and leisure in our environment, and also in our mind, from which we can and do infer ultimately to the existence of God, namely, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
I hope you will continue with me, now that I have presented to you the information on the concept of God, and also some pieces of evidence which lead me to infer to the existence of God as per concept above.
Tell you what, suppose you just tell me in your reply, again what is the information of the concept of God with you, from your self thought out idea of God?
And what pieces of evidence do you know to be missing which absence leads you to infer to the non-existence of God, as per YOUR information on the concept of God Which you deny to exist.
PS
Dear Loudmouth, perhaps if you will, just present in one brief write up your expatiation on your thinking by which you come to the non-existence of God
Now, to atheists who react to my expatiation with No evidence.
You have to present your write up on what is your idea of evidence, and what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Or as I see you to be into next, your explanation for the existence of babies,
namely, because there is a law of gravity, then babies could and did come about in the ultimate terms.
Don't forget your evidence for the law of gravity, and also as there is a law, then there is an author of the law.
And don't forget to produce evidence of how randomness brings forth into existence anything at all - but best, present your proposition on how randomness exists at all outside your mind.
Here is what I know about evidence after several years of dealing with evidence - in plain language:
"Evidnece is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
For example, I just read something about a man who died in suspicious circumstances, and investigators found traces of sperm in his anus, from which they have evidence that there was sex action of this subject with another human subject.
Now, dear atheists, please present your stock knowledge of evidence and one example.
I have evidence of 875 posts, and not one of them contains evidence for god/s.Okay, Skreeper, let you tell me. Do you have evidence that there exists a post #853?
I will play your script, by telling you that post #853 is the evidence of post #853 existing.
Are you feeling well?Dear atheists and theists here, and also all readers please chip in with your opinions.
We will all do searching and thinking, and come to the common idea of the ancient world, that the universe i.e. the cosmos is eternal.
We will report back tomorrow, what we have for a finding and a possible explanation why the ancient world held the idea they did hold.
Now from repeated experience from my part with some atheists here, they will retort that they don't have to do any searching and thinking, etc.
That is the attitude that you guys are not into reason and observation, and it means that you will talk like Skreeper, "The nose is evidence of the nose."
Anyway, I will do my searching and thinking, as to come to the finding whether the ancient world held that the cosmos is eternal, and why.
See you guys all tomorrow, and thanks to you all, for keeping this thread of mine very busy.
First, dear atheists here who are still waitng for evidence from me, you can continue to wait, in the meantime you also produce a write up of what is evidence to you and an example.
__________________
Dear Skreeper, are you aware that you cannot just stop at one point and insist on not going on to the next point in a progression inference?
Let you see that in boxing, boxers used to hit each other until one was knocked down and could not get up upon the count of 10.
That was the logical system because no box can just stop because to stop means to throw in the towel i.e. surrender, and be booed by all watchers as a coward.
Tht is what you are doing, saying that the nose is evidence of the nose, but you refuse to go to the next step which is the question on what caused the nose, and and on and on until you cannot ask any further: because you will be into lapsing into the fallacy of infinite regress - on that please read thoroughly about the fallacy of infinite regress.
Back to boxing, nowadays it is the universal rule that when the referee notices that a boxer is already in serious danger of death or some very compromising injury, then he can stop the bout, and judges will decide who the winner is.
Now, in your case with your kind of only stopping at the nose, telling me that the nose is the evidence of the nose, you are like giving up in a boxing bout, that with the first throw in your face, you already insist that you have lost the fight: for the first hit on your face, that is it, the evidence that you can't win at all.
Please don't limit your thinking and reading to only myopic length; it is like atheist scientists, they insist that they don't have to think beyond the Big Bang event. because that is not science, or they insist that no one knows what comes in the status that prevails outside the status post the Big Bang.
See if you can understand what I am trying to tell you.
Annex
Skreeper $853
The nose on our face is evidence for the existence of our nose. Babies are evidence that babies exist...you get the idea.
You cannot infer something like a god into existence unless you provide us with the criteria by which you did so and then actually provide evidence.
Did you pay for the video?It's like one of those advertising videos you see online that is half an hour of someone telling you how great their technique for making money is, but never actually telling you what the technique is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?