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.
Mortensen said:I just asked it... look above
Of course there's no proof. All religions depend upon faith. Belief without evidence. Take Scientologists, for example. Dafter even than Christians, but with a significant following. But like Christianity, absolutely no proof. Nor evidence.
Our faith is in God. Like... say the big bang.. how did all the chemicals get there if it created the world? And I have seen Angels so you cannot prove me wrong. The put us on the earth and left us here to live by ourselves because of Adam and Eve.Mortensen said:Why? What good is coming from people only having "faith"? I only see different types of faiths causing conflicts and debates...
For there is tons of proof, look on the news. And plus the BIBLE has predicted many things that would happen in this future.
JonathonD said:Our faith is in God. Like... say the big bang.. how did all the chemicals get there if it created the world?
I've seen Santa can you prove me wrong? Can you prove that you really saw an Angel and not just hallucinating?And I have seen Angels so you cannot prove me wrong. The put us on the earth and left us here to live by ourselves because of Adam and Eve.
Please give us what you would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God.Mortensen said:What reason have God to hide is existence? Why is there people not believing in him? Shoud there even be doubt?
Where?Mortensen said:Constant revealing of God.
People are notoriously bad witnesses. They may well THINK they see miracles; whether or not they actually did is another thing entirely.Mortensen said:People seeing miracles
Never happened.Mortensen said:miracles caught on tape
Like what? I've never heard of such a thing.Mortensen said:mysteries are answered by things that only mean that there is a higher power
People's confidence does not equate to their correctness. People have been confident of any number of things that are false.Mortensen said:more people will "meet" God and they will get more confident of his existence.
There aren't.Mortensen said:People cannot doubt gods existence if there is thousands of good, unexplainable things happening all the time.
No idea what this means.Mortensen said:"The world would not accept this kind of sudden happenings" is not a counter argument.
Yes, he could have (if he exists). Where is the evidence he did?Mortensen said:God is all mighty, he could make it work, bessides he could have made things like this happening all from the start.
this question is meaningless unless you tell us what you would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God.Electric Skeptic said:Yes, he could have (if he exists). Where is the evidence he did?
No, it's quite meaningful. You (and your fellow-believers) are the ones who claim there is evidence - but when challenged, all you can offer are either falsehoods or generalities. It's up to you to provide it.JonF said:
this question is meaningless unless you tell us what you would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God.
There was a condition for the question to be meaningless.Electric Skeptic said:No, it's quite meaningful.
Others may have, but I have made no such claim.Electric Skeptic said:You (and your fellow-believers) are the ones who claim there is evidence
Well the burden of proof in this case is interesting. It should rest with you, since this is a Christian forum and you are making the claim. Also, I have offered no such things so far, so please don’t make unfounded accusations.Electric Skeptic said:- but when challenged, all you can offer are either falsehoods or generalities. It's up to you to provide it.
There is a problem with any of these being evidence for the existence of God.Electric Skeptic said:However, I can think of huge numbers of things taht would be evidence of the existence of God. How about daily miracles? Religious healers who are really able to heal? Answered prayers (and no, not the 'he answered...he said to wait a while' answers)? Any of those would be a pretty good start...
I know. It was still meaningful, even with the condition.JonF said:There was a condition for the question to be meaningless.
Apologies - ni saying 'you' I meant Christians in general, not you in particular. Again, my apologies for implying that you in particular had done so.JonF said:Others may have, but I have made no such claim.
No, the burden of proof always rests on those making the claim - in this case, the claim that God exists. The fact that we're on a Christian forum is irrelevant. And I haven't made any claims regarding God's existence - you (generic you, meaning Christians) have.JonF said:Well the burden of proof in this case is interesting. It should rest with you, since this is a Christian forum and you are making the claim.
Again, apologies - I meant 'you' in the generic sense.JonF said:Also, I have offered no such things so far, so please dont make unfounded accusations.
I could - which is why I said it would be evidence, not proof, for God. If someone claimed that they could heal by God's power, and could actually do so, that would certainly be evidence for God. It would, as you say, be possible that the healing had nothing to do with God - but it wuold be evidence, not proof, for God.JonF said:There is a problem with any of these being evidence for the existence of God.
Religious healers and prayer has a causation problem. There is no way to show that my prayer or a religious healer was the cause of the answered prayer or the healing. If I was to say look I prayed for X, and X happened even though X is very unlikely you could just say well X happened randomly.
A good point. To a large extent, 'supernatural' is a pretty meaningless term. It could be said to mean 'that which we haven't classified as natural yet'. For example, ESP is considered to be supernatural. Yet if it were suddenly discovered to have certain experimentally-verifiable properties, it would cease to be supernatural and just become part of the natural.JonF said:Miracles might be better, but still has issues also. Miracles by nature are super natural. So if I was to site what I would call a miracle as evidence you could always object there is an unknown natural explanation, or the event was really natural. In other words, there is no way to show that the super natural is actually in fact super natural.
I disagree emphatically. I called what you meant by “evidence” in your post into question. You claim the question still has meaning. So please give the meaning of the question with out reference to “evidence”.Electric Skeptic said:I know. It was still meaningful, even with the condition.
In this case were not the ones making the claim given the context.Electric Skeptic said:No, the burden of proof always rests on those making the claim - in this case, the claim that God exists. The fact that we're on a Christian forum is irrelevant. And I haven't made any claims regarding God's existence - you (generic you, meaning Christians) have.
If causal connection can’t be established it doesn’t really count as evidence.Electric Skeptic said:I could - which is why I said it would be evidence, not proof, for God. If someone claimed that they could heal by God's power, and could actually do so, that would certainly be evidence for God. It would, as you say, be possible that the healing had nothing to do with God - but it wuold be evidence, not proof, for God.
I disagree here too. An appeal to the supernatural should hardly count as evidence. Do you think a couple hundred years ago explaining things by spontaneous genesis was legitimate evidence for the existence of God? By the standard you gave it would be. Or do you mean singular events that go against the natural order? These wouldn’t work either, for the first possible objection I gave. Let’s say we ran across some mass that didn’t have any gravity. Physicist everywhere would immediately say the current theories of gravity just need revision. Soon new theories to explain this phenomenon would arise, or basic assumptions would be changed. The problem asking for evidence of the super natural is you are asking for scientific evidence I assume. And one of the basic assumptions of the natural sciences is that the universe is consistent.Electric Skeptic said:God, however, does not. He is, and always will remain, supernatural. If he was to cause an event that we not only cannot find a natural explanatino for, but cannot find a natural way that it could even have occurred (for example - countering gravity), it would be pretty good evidence (again, not proof).
do you mean proof here, or did you mean evidence?Lord_Marx said:I think the point is that God would know what was required to prove himself to each individual person, however he refuses to do this for some reason.
JonF said:do you mean proof here, or did you mean evidence?
Sure. Show me something to indicate that God exists.JonF said:I disagree emphatically. I called what you meant by “evidence” in your post into question. You claim the question still has meaning. So please give the meaning of the question with out reference to “evidence”.
Semantics. The positive claim - that God exists - is yours (ie., Christians).JonF said:In this case were not the ones making the claim given the context.
Of course it can. Not as good quality evidence as if a causal connection can be established, but evidence nonetheless.JonF said:If causal connection can’t be established it doesn’t really count as evidence.
Exactly. So if it began, in some aspect, to act on an INconsistent basis - if, say, you were able to fly through the air - then that would be evidence of supernaturalism.JonF said:I disagree here too. An appeal to the supernatural should hardly count as evidence. Do you think a couple hundred years ago explaining things by spontaneous genesis was legitimate evidence for the existence of God? By the standard you gave it would be. Or do you mean singular events that go against the natural order? These wouldn’t work either, for the first possible objection I gave. Let’s say we ran across some mass that didn’t have any gravity. Physicist everywhere would immediately say the current theories of gravity just need revision. Soon new theories to explain this phenomenon would arise, or basic assumptions would be changed. The problem asking for evidence of the super natural is you are asking for scientific evidence I assume. And one of the basic assumptions of the natural sciences is that the universe is consistent.
Then I find it to be a meaningless claim. Any claim that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable is worthless. I can claim that an invisible, undetectable dragon lives in my garage. Is that of any worth?JonF said:Now here I will actually make a claim of my own: the claim God exist is a non-falsifiable non-verifiable claim. So no, I don’t think we can offer empirical or ontological evidence that God exist.
So again I ask, what would you consider this “something” to be that would indicate God exist. Also would like to point that when I asked for a specific “evidence” you substituted for a more general “something”. When within the last several post you critiqued Christians for appealing to generals.Electric Skeptic said:Sure. Show me something to indicate that God exists.
True, but on a Christian forum the claim God exist is an assumption. You are challenging the consistency of our assumptions, so the burden of evidence would rest on you.Electric Skeptic said:Semantics. The positive claim - that God exists - is yours (ie., Christians).
If low quality evidence is what you want you can do a google search and come up with thousands of cases where people prayed and then people were healed with out causal connection.Electric Skeptic said:Of course it can. Not as good quality evidence as if a causal connection can be established, but evidence nonetheless.
But if I did offer find some evidence along these lines, me flying through air for example, you would say. There is a trick because it defies physics or it’s natural because natural science assumes consistency, you just lack a natural explanation.Electric Skeptic said:Exactly. So if it began, in some aspect, to act on an INconsistent basis - if, say, you were able to fly through the air - then that would be evidence of supernaturalism.
Your claim is meaningless for other reasons. Unless, if what you mean by “meaningless” is evidence can’t be offered to support or deny this claim. If by meaningless you mean something else, I disagree. Most people respond to things like this by saying, “Believing in non falsifiable claims is like believing in UFO’s.” The difference between belief in UFO’s and belief in God is that UFO’s are verifiable, I could bring you show you a UFO and a little green man and that would settle the issue. Or, by comparing belief in God to something similar to the situation you gave. These claims are meaningless because they have no practical effect on reality. If your dragon exists it wouldn’t make one meaningful difference what so ever.Electric Skeptic said:Then I find it to be a meaningless claim. Any claim that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable is worthless. I can claim that an invisible, undetectable dragon lives in my garage. Is that of any worth?
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?