Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof of God has not been fulfilled

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 2:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since the Burden of Proof has not been met, why do people use God as "evidence"?

How did the universe start?
Big Bang- backed up with evidence
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

God- No evidence

How did life get here?
Abiogenesis- Evidence shows it might actually be possible
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www.wired.com...

God- No evidence

Why is it that people try using God as an explanation for things when they haven't even shown God exists?

No evidence for God, no using God as "evidence" or as an "explanation".
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 2:50:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evidence of God's Divine Intervention in our world can be seen working quietly in the background in the Holy Land where the Sign of the Messiah and New Word of God have already been established in one of Christianity's most holy cities, Nazareth. Another Sign of the Return of the Spirit of Christ has happened in the New World as God intends to spiritually unite Old and New World Savior prophesies into one global spiritual recovery. These events would not have occurred if not for God's propelling new spiritual visions and revelations in our time. The Spirit works through the actions of men and women who bear Witness to Who and What It is that guides them to do their spiritual activist works. Atheists waiting around for God to show up as an old man with a beard to take a measure for his suit and shoe sizes, are waiting for Santa Claus mentally. And when Santa doesn't show up with reindeer and sleigh in the sky they say, "See! He doesn't exist!" They don't see the millions of santa dads sneaking presents for kids to have JOY on the Savior's birthday who is all about Gift giving, the Gift of Life for starters..

More demonstration of Divine Intervention will be happening this year, btw..It's those Times now when many an old religion faces its End Times as God prepares us spiritually for our New Age world.
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:11:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:50:19 PM, biomystic wrote:
Evidence of God's Divine Intervention in our world can be seen working quietly in the background in the Holy Land where the Sign of the Messiah and New Word of God have already been established in one of Christianity's most holy cities, Nazareth. Another Sign of the Return of the Spirit of Christ has happened in the New World as God intends to spiritually unite Old and New World Savior prophesies into one global spiritual recovery. These events would not have occurred if not for God's propelling new spiritual visions and revelations in our time. The Spirit works through the actions of men and women who bear Witness to Who and What It is that guides them to do their spiritual activist works. Atheists waiting around for God to show up as an old man with a beard to take a measure for his suit and shoe sizes, are waiting for Santa Claus mentally. And when Santa doesn't show up with reindeer and sleigh in the sky they say, "See! He doesn't exist!" They don't see the millions of santa dads sneaking presents for kids to have JOY on the Savior's birthday who is all about Gift giving, the Gift of Life for starters..

More demonstration of Divine Intervention will be happening this year, btw..It's those Times now when many an old religion faces its End Times as God prepares us spiritually for our New Age world.

Can you tell me what events happened and how they "prove" God? Source it as well.

At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

Burden of proof lies on the POSITIVE claim. Saying there is NO God is a negative claim, therefore there is no burden of proof.

At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

If a God did that then the God would be a deceptive God, which in pretty much every religion God is not a deceiver. Also, BoP lies on the positive claim, so...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:37:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:11:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

Burden of proof lies on the POSITIVE claim. Saying there is NO God is a negative claim, therefore there is no burden of proof.

No, a burden of proof lies on all claims. For example, if I were to say "earthworms do not possess a conscious brain". I have to show they do not. In the same way, you have to show that your claim that there is no God is correct. You can't just assert any claim without showing it to be true, negative or positive.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:38:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:24:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since the Burden of Proof has not been met, why do people use God as "evidence"?

How did the universe start?
Big Bang- backed up with evidence
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

God- No evidence

There's evidence for the Big Bang, you're right about that. Except only gravity and quantum fluctuations could've been the mechanisms for it. It's not a matter of something coming from nothing. It physically happened by a quantum energy field and gravity.


How did life get here?
Abiogenesis- Evidence shows it might actually be possible
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www.wired.com...

God- No evidence

You know, one of the core ideas behind abiogenesis experiments is to prove life could arise without a prior intelligence or life. I think these experiments will always fail at just that simply because the conditions simulated for the experiments were simulated by an intelligence, or human beings. I have trouble understanding what makes an outside intelligence responsible for the universe so far fetched considering the point I just made. If anything, abiogenesis only lends further credibility to a creator if it's successful. What would happen is that we would just find the physical mechanism for the origin of life, but that wouldn't tell us it happened all by itself.


Why is it that people try using God as an explanation for things when they haven't even shown God exists?

No evidence for God, no using God as "evidence" or as an "explanation".
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:46:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.

But can you point to anything else that has evidence like that, that you accept?

I mean: if I see Bob walk into the kitchen, I'm likely to trust that yup, I saw him, even if no one else did. But if Bob's been dead 10 years, and no one else saw him, I'm more likely to think I am, in some way, mistaken.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:58:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:38:43 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:

There's evidence for the Big Bang, you're right about that. Except only gravity and quantum fluctuations could've been the mechanisms for it. It's not a matter of something coming from nothing. It physically happened by a quantum energy field and gravity.

Haven't we discussed this enough already? I already explained how a quantum vacuum and nothing are practically the same thing and that a quantum vacuum can arise from nothing as it can be, at any point, nothing.

You know, one of the core ideas behind abiogenesis experiments is to prove life could arise without a prior intelligence or life. I think these experiments will always fail at just that simply because the conditions simulated for the experiments were simulated by an intelligence, or human beings. I have trouble understanding what makes an outside intelligence responsible for the universe so far fetched considering the point I just made. If anything, abiogenesis only lends further credibility to a creator if it's successful. What would happen is that we would just find the physical mechanism for the origin of life, but that wouldn't tell us it happened all by itself.

You know, except that the only intelligence is recreating the conditions believed to be present on early earth. After that it is letting the conditions that we think existed do the work. That is not an intelligence creating it, it is an intelligence recreating the conditions that allowed for it to be created.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:08:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Burden of proof lies on the POSITIVE claim. Saying there is NO God is a negative claim, therefore there is no burden of proof.

Actually that is a positive claim. Be careful with how you structure your statements. While it is logical to disbelieve a claim until proven correct, it is illogical to assert it is false without substantiation.

Even though it is more likely than not that god does not exist if the claim was made without any reason, only as a mutually exclusive proposal to an explanation, when many other mutually exclusive explanations can exist.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:08:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Actually that is a positive claim. Be careful with how you structure your statements. While it is logical to disbelieve a claim until proven correct, it is illogical to assert it is false without substantiation.

Even though it is more likely than not that god does not exist if the claim was made without any reason, only as a mutually exclusive proposal to an explanation, when many other mutually exclusive explanations can exist.

Actually, when making a negative claim there is something called the Null Hypothesis to show it is the logical choice. So if I have to defend a negative claim I can use the Null Hypothesis. Since there exists no evidence that a God exists, the logical conclusion is that he does not. It is backed further by there not having a need for God to exist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:19:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:46:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.

But can you point to anything else that has evidence like that, that you accept?

I mean: if I see Bob walk into the kitchen, I'm likely to trust that yup, I saw him, even if no one else did. But if Bob's been dead 10 years, and no one else saw him, I'm more likely to think I am, in some way, mistaken.

It sounds like you are arguing that delusions and personal spiritual reflections are alike. Delusions are false interpretations based on compromised knowledge. Spiritual reflections are interpretations based on experiences and knowledge.

To say that interpretations based on experiences and knowledge are not significant is something I don't accept. I can interpret poetry. And when I feel very strongly about an interpretation because of even just my experiences, it's not necessarily an unsupported interpretation.

My English professor had my class interpret a poem called "My Papa's Waltz" this week. Nearly everyone in my class was convinced that it was about an abusive father (I didn't think so however). Then, my professor stated that one of his friends met the author of the poem and asked him if it was about abuse. The author said it wasn't. In this instance, I was correct with my interpretation. I did feel fairly strongly about it too. Now are all of my poetic interpretations right? No. But does that mean that they are unsupported? No.

In a similar way, I believe strongly in my religious beliefs.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:17:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:08:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Actually that is a positive claim. Be careful with how you structure your statements. While it is logical to disbelieve a claim until proven correct, it is illogical to assert it is false without substantiation.

Even though it is more likely than not that god does not exist if the claim was made without any reason, only as a mutually exclusive proposal to an explanation, when many other mutually exclusive explanations can exist.

Actually, when making a negative claim there is something called the Null Hypothesis to show it is the logical choice. So if I have to defend a negative claim I can use the Null Hypothesis. Since there exists no evidence that a God exists, the logical conclusion is that he does not. It is backed further by there not having a need for God to exist.

I agree with you. But there needs to be a disconnect between the positive affirmation if the antithesis, and the negative affirmation.

But then it's so hard to colloquially separate...

Positive: There is no broom in the closet
Negative: No reason to believe there is a broom in the closet
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:19:58 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:

It sounds like you are arguing that delusions and personal spiritual reflections are alike.

Not necessarily. I'm arguing that, at least as regards to supernatural occurrences, you must have a reason to think they're different, which is a different point.

Delusions are false interpretations based on compromised knowledge. Spiritual reflections are interpretations based on experiences and knowledge.

To say that interpretations based on experiences and knowledge are not significant is something I don't accept. I can interpret poetry. And when I feel very strongly about an interpretation because of even just my experiences, it's not necessarily an unsupported interpretation.

Does poetry make you believe in god?

My English professor had my class interpret a poem called "My Papa's Waltz" this week. Nearly everyone in my class was convinced that it was about an abusive father (I didn't think so however). Then, my professor stated that one of his friends met the author of the poem and asked him if it was about abuse. The author said it wasn't. In this instance, I was correct with my interpretation. I did feel fairly strongly about it too. Now are all of my poetic interpretations right? No. But does that mean that they are unsupported? No.

Again, this is a far cry from supporting the existence of a thing. In the case of poetry, you know there is an intent--you're just questioning what the intent was, and both possibilities are equally possible. We know people can create moving works with NO deeper interpretation intended. We know they can make works WITH interpretation intended. We're working with known possibilities.

In a similar way, I believe strongly in my religious beliefs.

Except you don't know that god is even an option. Further, are you making the claim that your interpretation of the natural world (i.e., no supernatural events) is equally valid, despite supposing the existence of a thing for which you have no evidence of even plausibility? I presumed you were saying that you had some personal, religious (i.e. supernatural) experiences.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 6:30:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:19:58 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:46:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.

But can you point to anything else that has evidence like that, that you accept?

I mean: if I see Bob walk into the kitchen, I'm likely to trust that yup, I saw him, even if no one else did. But if Bob's been dead 10 years, and no one else saw him, I'm more likely to think I am, in some way, mistaken.

It sounds like you are arguing that delusions and personal spiritual reflections are alike. Delusions are false interpretations based on compromised knowledge. Spiritual reflections are interpretations based on experiences and knowledge.

To say that interpretations based on experiences and knowledge are not significant is something I don't accept. I can interpret poetry. And when I feel very strongly about an interpretation because of even just my experiences, it's not necessarily an unsupported interpretation.

My English professor had my class interpret a poem called "My Papa's Waltz" this week. Nearly everyone in my class was convinced that it was about an abusive father (I didn't think so however). Then, my professor stated that one of his friends met the author of the poem and asked him if it was about abuse. The author said it wasn't. In this instance, I was correct with my interpretation. I did feel fairly strongly about it too. Now are all of my poetic interpretations right? No. But does that mean that they are unsupported? No.

In a similar way, I believe strongly in my religious beliefs.

Sure, but the more exceptional a claim , or a priori unlikely, and the larger the consequence, then general the higher standard of evidence should be required to garner belief.

I would argue a God that dictates pretty much very major aspect in one's life, from freedom of thought, action, liberty, your behaviour to your peers and other members of the population. One that dictates sexual rights, rights to life and the morality of several actions including marriage, abortion and homosexuality....

Seems to be an exceptional claim.

Therefore should satisfy an exceptional preponderance of evidence. And seems rather disingenuous when you consider your actions as a result do have real consequences on everyone else.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 7:38:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bare with me, I don't know how to separate the quotes without losing the format, so I will literally put quotes on your text XD

"Not necessarily. I'm arguing that, at least as regards to supernatural occurrences, you must have a reason to think they're different, which is a different point."

I don't have any one particular reason. My beliefs are based on all of the experiences I've had in life. If you really want a "better" reason, I have suffered with depression and anxiety and these issues do contribute largely to my beliefs. They're just not the only contributors.

"Does poetry make you believe in god?"

No. The poetry example was just an analogy.

"Again, this is a far cry from supporting the existence of a thing. In the case of poetry, you know there is an intent--you're just questioning what the intent was, and both possibilities are equally possible. We know people can create moving works with NO deeper interpretation intended. We know they can make works WITH interpretation intended. We're working with known possibilities."

Like I said, the poetry example is an analogy. Religious beliefs have far more room to work with experiences as far as interpretations go. It's also not merely the fact that I have made interpretations based on my experiences and knowledge, but the fact that I've made numerous interpretations. I've had loads of experiences that all point to the same interpretations. In addition to these, I have questioned my interpretations and considered opposing ones over and over.

Simply because a divine creator cannot be physically proven does not mean that a divine creator is not a possibility. Aliens also can't be physically proven. I don't really have a stance about aliens other than them being a possibility.

"Except you don't know that god is even an option. Further, are you making the claim that your interpretation of the natural world (i.e., no supernatural events) is equally valid, despite supposing the existence of a thing for which you have no evidence of even plausibility? I presumed you were saying that you had some personal, religious (i.e. supernatural) experiences."

Again, my aliens example. Their existence can neither be physically proven or disproven.

Saying that a god's existence is not plausible is false. If we are talking about the same God, we are talking about a divine power. In His power, he could literally say, "I don't like Mondays. I should get rid of Mondays," and do so. Haha, not that He would, but it's an example. Given the same divine power, he could also hide his existence. Why would he do this? Faith. Faith is a spiritual thing. It's not based on seeing God and saying, "Oh look, He does exist. I guess I believe in Him now."

Also, I haven't had "supernatural experiences". I would say that God has carved out particular paths and experiences for me.

To imply that because I have no physical proof to believe in God, I should not believe in him is like saying, "Well, I wasn't in class today. I have no proof that there is a test tomorrow, so I shouldn't study for it." (I'm not saying you should believe "just in case" there is a god. Different concept). However, if one were to reflect on how long it's been since the last test and to remember short review activities that the teacher had introduced recently, one would probably interpret that a test is coming up.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 7:49:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:20:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Positive: There is no broom in the closet
Negative: No reason to believe there is a broom in the closet

This does not even work... God cannot be directly observed, a broom is. God should have evidence of existence, a broom in the closet does not have to leave evidence outside the closet.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 7:51:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 6:30:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:19:58 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:46:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.

But can you point to anything else that has evidence like that, that you accept?

I mean: if I see Bob walk into the kitchen, I'm likely to trust that yup, I saw him, even if no one else did. But if Bob's been dead 10 years, and no one else saw him, I'm more likely to think I am, in some way, mistaken.

It sounds like you are arguing that delusions and personal spiritual reflections are alike. Delusions are false interpretations based on compromised knowledge. Spiritual reflections are interpretations based on experiences and knowledge.

To say that interpretations based on experiences and knowledge are not significant is something I don't accept. I can interpret poetry. And when I feel very strongly about an interpretation because of even just my experiences, it's not necessarily an unsupported interpretation.

My English professor had my class interpret a poem called "My Papa's Waltz" this week. Nearly everyone in my class was convinced that it was about an abusive father (I didn't think so however). Then, my professor stated that one of his friends met the author of the poem and asked him if it was about abuse. The author said it wasn't. In this instance, I was correct with my interpretation. I did feel fairly strongly about it too. Now are all of my poetic interpretations right? No. But does that mean that they are unsupported? No.

In a similar way, I believe strongly in my religious beliefs.

Sure, but the more exceptional a claim , or a priori unlikely, and the larger the consequence, then general the higher standard of evidence should be required to garner belief.

I would argue a God that dictates pretty much very major aspect in one's life, from freedom of thought, action, liberty, your behaviour to your peers and other members of the population. One that dictates sexual rights, rights to life and the morality of several actions including marriage, abortion and homosexuality....


Seems to be an exceptional claim.

Therefore should satisfy an exceptional preponderance of evidence. And seems rather disingenuous when you consider your actions as a result do have real consequences on everyone else.

First, I have an exceptional amount of evidence. For myself. That is all I need it for.

Second, before I get onto your other point, I actually don't believe God cares about homosexuality. He's chill with it :P Anyway, I believe this because there's evidence that texts concerning homosexuals have been mistranslated. I can cite some sources if you want.

Anyway, God does "dictate" a lot of my life. But I wouldn't say he alters my freedom of thought or liberty. I always consider my relationship with God one that will change who I am as an individual for the better. You got me at the whole abortion thing, but I don't believe in abortion myself. Strangely, I'm probably one of the very few Catholics who advocate abortion being legal (provided it's before 20 weeks). Someone described something once that fits me perfectly... "I'm morally anti-abortion, but politically pro-choice." I try my best not to let my religion affect other individuals negatively. Marriage - divorce-wise, at least, is something not currently relevant to me. But it's something I have to research in terms of the bible and modern studies on the translations, because I am not 100% bible savvy to be honest :P But I am not a stranger to the bible either.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 9:19:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 7:49:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:20:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Positive: There is no broom in the closet
Negative: No reason to believe there is a broom in the closet

This does not even work... God cannot be directly observed, a broom is. God should have evidence of existence, a broom in the closet does not have to leave evidence outside the closet.

Ugh ... The concept seems lost on you ... I was trying to make a distinguish between the two types of statements ....
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 9:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 7:51:43 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:30:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/14/2014 6:19:58 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:46:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.

But can you point to anything else that has evidence like that, that you accept?

I mean: if I see Bob walk into the kitchen, I'm likely to trust that yup, I saw him, even if no one else did. But if Bob's been dead 10 years, and no one else saw him, I'm more likely to think I am, in some way, mistaken.

It sounds like you are arguing that delusions and personal spiritual reflections are alike. Delusions are false interpretations based on compromised knowledge. Spiritual reflections are interpretations based on experiences and knowledge.

To say that interpretations based on experiences and knowledge are not significant is something I don't accept. I can interpret poetry. And when I feel very strongly about an interpretation because of even just my experiences, it's not necessarily an unsupported interpretation.

My English professor had my class interpret a poem called "My Papa's Waltz" this week. Nearly everyone in my class was convinced that it was about an abusive father (I didn't think so however). Then, my professor stated that one of his friends met the author of the poem and asked him if it was about abuse. The author said it wasn't. In this instance, I was correct with my interpretation. I did feel fairly strongly about it too. Now are all of my poetic interpretations right? No. But does that mean that they are unsupported? No.

In a similar way, I believe strongly in my religious beliefs.

Sure, but the more exceptional a claim , or a priori unlikely, and the larger the consequence, then general the higher standard of evidence should be required to garner belief.

I would argue a God that dictates pretty much very major aspect in one's life, from freedom of thought, action, liberty, your behaviour to your peers and other members of the population. One that dictates sexual rights, rights to life and the morality of several actions including marriage, abortion and homosexuality....


Seems to be an exceptional claim.

Therefore should satisfy an exceptional preponderance of evidence. And seems rather disingenuous when you consider your actions as a result do have real consequences on everyone else.

First, I have an exceptional amount of evidence. For myself. That is all I need it for.

Second, before I get onto your other point, I actually don't believe God cares about homosexuality. He's chill with it :P Anyway, I believe this because there's evidence that texts concerning homosexuals have been mistranslated. I can cite some sources if you want.

Anyway, God does "dictate" a lot of my life. But I wouldn't say he alters my freedom of thought or liberty. I always consider my relationship with God one that will change who I am as an individual for the better. You got me at the whole abortion thing, but I don't believe in abortion myself. Strangely, I'm probably one of the very few Catholics who advocate abortion being legal (provided it's before 20 weeks). Someone described something once that fits me perfectly... "I'm morally anti-abortion, but politically pro-choice." I try my best not to let my religion affect other individuals negatively. Marriage - divorce-wise, at least, is something not currently relevant to me. But it's something I have to research in terms of the bible and modern studies on the translations, because I am not 100% bible savvy to be honest :P But I am not a stranger to the bible either.

Seems you are willing to accept a lower standard of evidence for your God claim than you are for other significant issues.

Just how often are such claims right given these standards of evidence? You only need to look as far as the 100 thousand other gods, all complete with their own texts, anecdotal evidence etc, to see they are all mutually exclusive (I.e at most 1 of them is correct, likely all).

The bible is written in bronze-age times where there were divine explanations for essentially everything that was not understood (disease, famine, lightning...). It hardly seems surprising that this is just 1 of many that occurred this way.

I find accepting these Bronze Age texts, which themselves are stories of stories of hearsay, with no original texts, by anonymous authors, in languages that have gone extinct, a little hard going. Much less grounding my worldview in it...
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 9:28:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
two answers;

1. Humans seek the security of a another life after this present life on earth. It is a human frailty that religions prey upon.

2. Childhood indoctrination into being Christian believers before they are capable of making adult decisions for themselves, enslave them into being believers for life in most cases. (this is child abuse)
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 10:04:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:50:19 PM, biomystic wrote:
Evidence of God's Divine Intervention in our world can be seen working quietly in the background in the Holy Land where the Sign of the Messiah and New Word of God have already been established in one of Christianity's most holy cities, Nazareth. Another Sign of the Return of the Spirit of Christ has happened in the New World as God intends to spiritually unite Old and New World Savior prophesies into one global spiritual recovery. These events would not have occurred if not for God's propelling new spiritual visions and revelations in our time. The Spirit works through the actions of men and women who bear Witness to Who and What It is that guides them to do their spiritual activist works. Atheists waiting around for God to show up as an old man with a beard to take a measure for his suit and shoe sizes, are waiting for Santa Claus mentally. And when Santa doesn't show up with reindeer and sleigh in the sky they say, "See! He doesn't exist!" They don't see the millions of santa dads sneaking presents for kids to have JOY on the Savior's birthday who is all about Gift giving, the Gift of Life for starters..

More demonstration of Divine Intervention will be happening this year, btw..It's those Times now when many an old religion faces its End Times as God prepares us spiritually for our New Age world.

Can you tell me what events happened and how they "prove" God? Source it as well.

Did you not read my statement on how God as a Spirit works through the actions of human beings? In 1998 I received a lengthy epiphany upon pulling out a replica sword I had mailordered from a company that made them as they were made originally, hand-forged soft steel and brass, my particular model being called "Excalibur" and a replica of a 800 A.D. typical English sword. The epiphany called for me to begin a series of sanctification baptisms for this sword that I was to rename "Paxcalibur", the Sword of Peace. The rituals called for baptisms in our local waters at the seasonal breaks, Spring Equinox, Summer Solstice, Fall, Winter, with the last baptism to be done in the Jordan River in Israel. The sword was to become what I thought at the time would be another sword turned into a plowshare following Isaiah's famous words. Well, I am a poor person and had no financial means then to go to Israel to finish the work assigned me by God in the epiphany. I tried to raise money on my own three different times and failed each time as some event came up in my life and took potential travel money away. Finally, a miraculous string of events and a run of luck I've never been able to duplicate got me funds for a round-trip ticket to Israel and I went after waiting 14 years to be able to go. I had made friends with an Israeli peace activist who took me to the headwaters of the Jordan where Pax's final baptism took place in a beautiful unpolluted section of the Jordan. The Story of Paxcalibur at: http://biomystic.org...

Pax needed a home now as it was to be God's Gift to the Holy Land peoples. My Israeli friend knew the head priest in Nazareth who she thought might like to see and hear about the Story of Paxcalibur and so we went to Nazareth to see him. He loved the sword and insisted I bring it to the annual Nazareth Easter Procession happening the very next day. And so I brought Paxcalibur to Nazarean Israeli Palestinians who when they saw Pax they at first wondered what it was all about and then realized the Message clearly conveyed in this most spiritually powerful of religious icons. All through the parade route Christians and even Muslims above on their balconies honored Paxcalibur and at the end of the procession, in the courtyard of the Church of St. John, over 500 Nazarean Christians sang in Arabic praise of Paxcalibur and me, they sang and honored a thoroughly pagan hippie icon which is miraculously now firmly established as a Christian religious icon in one of Christianity's most holy cities. No one arranged anything beforehand. Paxcalibur goes next to Bethlehem where another Keeper organization awaits. Paxcalibur will finally go to Jerusalem where it's final home will be as a Sign of the Messiah and New Word of God that needs no translation to reach the hearts of human beings.

That was God's intervention in the Holy Land through this Jewish Christian prophesy bearer that was witnessed by hundreds of people, documented on Nazarean TV at the time (unknown if any tape copies remain). The second intervention came with another spiritual epiphany, a Vision of a Native American Spirit Woman that came to me over a month's time in 1998 beginning with a visual image of Her. Because this vision was unlike any of my other religious visions which were all Holy Land, Bible story centered then so I kept quiet about it for five years even though my ministry is on internet talkboards as you see me posting here. Finally, I just went ahead and posted the visual part of my Vision of Christ Josephine on the Native American section of Beliefnet, then the world's largest religious forum, may still be. Within a few seconds a Native American posted back that I had just described White Buffalo Calf Woman and Her prophesy of return to the Lakota, N. Cheyenne tribes waiting for Her reappearance as Her Sign, the birth of a white buffalo calf happened in 1993.

This full story can be read here: http://biomystic.org.... You will read about what I was instructed to tell the Lakota and other tribes about this in the continuing account as this vision is still in spiritual motion. I am working with the Oglala now and two other tribes fulfilling what God told me to do. Now there is a Josephine Bundle, something never before seen in the New World, a real blending of Savior prophesies and spirituality between Old World and New. No one could have orchestrated these events but God. They remain proof of God's Divine Intervention in our times to all spiritually conscious people. The non-spiritual don't get it, don't feel anything special, think people are nuts when they report spiritual energy zinging through them like what happens when you hear really good music, but the spiritually conscious in the Holy Land feel Pax's energy, and the spiritually conscious in the New World see the Spirit of Christ returning as the Daughter of God coming like a Thief in the Night no one would have suspected but the Children who heard Her Voice and saw Her coming in spiritual vision before She arrived. She is coming! As the appointed Messenger announcing Her arrival I should be raised up in some way in our times but not like before in the Age of Pisces where to get public attention martyrdom was required. I think God's going after Mammon now as it is the God Mammon who really rules the world.
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 10:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Seems you are willing to accept a lower standard of evidence for your God claim than you are for other significant issues.

Just how often are such claims right given these standards of evidence? You only need to look as far as the 100 thousand other gods, all complete with their own texts, anecdotal evidence etc, to see they are all mutually exclusive (I.e at most 1 of them is correct, likely all).

The bible is written in bronze-age times where there were divine explanations for essentially everything that was not understood (disease, famine, lightning...). It hardly seems surprising that this is just 1 of many that occurred this way.

I find accepting these Bronze Age texts, which themselves are stories of stories of hearsay, with no original texts, by anonymous authors, in languages that have gone extinct, a little hard going. Much less grounding my worldview in it...

Your first claim isn't true. All of my religious stances are based on spiritual reflections. For instance, I came to the conclusion that God didn't frown upon homosexuality before I found many sources that supported me (not by bias either. I am a straight individual). The sources are merely "extra" for people who want sources from me.

Also, I have stated that I don't know much about what bible has to say about something like divorce. But based on my own spiritual reflections, I already believe God wouldn't want an individual to stay in a relationship in which he or she is getting physically abused. You're merely assuming that because I have sources for something like the issue of homosexuality that I have lower standards of evidence for my general belief in God. But my spiritual reflections always come first.

I don't need approval from others to see if my spiritual reflections are "good enough" to believe in God. It's my personal choice to believe if I feel my support for God is strong enough.

However, I think we are all forgetting that this argument is about why people use God as evidence, when His existence has not been proven. This argument is not about the possibility of God existing.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 2:24:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since the Burden of Proof has not been met, why do people use God as "evidence"?

How did the universe start?
Big Bang- backed up with evidence
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...

Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang? ~ http://www.cfa.harvard.edu...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

God- No evidence

Some people do see evidence for God, but not in a 'laboratory way'. It's more like a Rorschach test where one person sees a pattern which supports one specific reality while another person sees something entirely different, but that doesn't invalidate either view. "The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science." ~ Union of Concerned Scientists

How did life get here?
Abiogenesis- Evidence shows it might actually be possible
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www.wired.com...

There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis, only propositions which "might actually be possible" to support it.

God- No evidence


Why is it that people try using God as an explanation for things when they haven't even shown God exists?

No evidence for God, no using God as "evidence" or as an "explanation".

It's very important to remember that just because you don't recognize a pattern doesn't mean that no one else does. Many people worship science today as religionists worshiped priests long ago. If there is a natural disaster or an outbreak of disease they are most likely to turn to science for help. Yet at this point we don't even know whether science will ultimately be beneficial to man or whether it might lead to our demise. There is one theory that civilizations can't exist for long past the splitting of the atom, and so it's possible that many civilizations on many worlds may have come and gone.

I'm not trying to take sides. The only thing I wish to know is the truth, whatever that may be. But many men of science believe that religion played a necessary role in evolution, even if God isn't real. Why can't the same be said of science? Mightn't we even now be playing-out the final scene? One thing I know - all it would take for religion to stage a renaissance would be for science to fail in a major catastrophe, so it might be wise to try understanding it better.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:13:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:40:12 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 5:26:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/14/2014 4:23:27 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
At 3/14/2014 2:59:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The burden of proof against God is also not fulfilled, so...

I agree with this.

I also agree with science; I just believe God used science as a mechanism for creation. In any case, I don't believe the existence of a god can be proved or disproved. If a god has divine powers, can't he or she hide his/her existence? Make the earth appear aged?

But why would you believe such a thing? I mean, I can come up with a nigh-infinite number of things which I could, if given the leeway, define such that of course no one can prove they exist. But for everything but god, people would say "until you give me a real reason to believe in this thing, I'm not going to".

My belief in God roots from very personal and spiritual reflections. They cannot suffice for anyone else's proof of God except my own. I don't tell people to believe in God. I don't tell them I have proof that He exists. Converting people is not the purpose of my religion, so I don't care if I can't prove his existence.

I like this answer. Relationships are personal things, whether they are with a friend or with one's own chosen "God."
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:20:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang? ~"

Speak for yourself. I know what came before the Big Bang. God told me in spiritual epiphanies and I have no reason not to believe it's true. It makes too much logical sense not to believe when you know God's Plan and our role in it.

The Gospel of Humanity tells how we got here and where we are going, how the Universe began and how it ends and even the Identity of God is revealed. The Gospel of Humanity at: http://biomystic.org....
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:26:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 7:38:33 PM, ThoughtsandThoughts wrote:
Bare with me, I don't know how to separate the quotes without losing the format, so I will literally put quotes on your text XD

If you start a new line, but begin it with a colon, it will start it as quoted text. Multiple colons will inset it further, as though 'twere multi-quoted. It's a little quirk of the system--I wish there were a page showing all the formatting that DDO allowed....I hope it helps that I've kinda done what I'm describing in my reply.

"Not necessarily. I'm arguing that, at least as regards to supernatural occurrences, you must have a reason to think they're different, which is a different point."

I don't have any one particular reason. My beliefs are based on all of the experiences I've had in life. If you really want a "better" reason, I have suffered with depression and anxiety and these issues do contribute largely to my beliefs. They're just not the only contributors.

At the risk of being negative, that's not really an answer--you've suffered from depression and....

"Does poetry make you believe in god?"

No. The poetry example was just an analogy.

That was a rhetorical question, but good on ya for holding me to a literal interpretation.

"Again, this is a far cry from supporting the existence of a thing. In the case of poetry, you know there is an intent--you're just questioning what the intent was, and both possibilities are equally possible. We know people can create moving works with NO deeper interpretation intended. We know they can make works WITH interpretation intended. We're working with known possibilities."

Like I said, the poetry example is an analogy. Religious beliefs have far more room to work with experiences as far as interpretations go.

I would disagree. I would agree that there are "standard" interpretations, and that those "standard" interpretations have a wide variety, but I would argue that none of them have any basis in any kind of reality (and I don't mean to be overly negative when I say that--bear with me I'm a third of a bottle of Luksosowa down).

It's also not merely the fact that I have made interpretations based on my experiences and knowledge, but the fact that I've made numerous interpretations. I've had loads of experiences that all point to the same interpretations. In addition to these, I have questioned my interpretations and considered opposing ones over and over.

Again, without meaning to be mean, but that's pretty vague.

To return to what was an analogy: you can say "Well, I read into the Flash that he's running from his homosexuality", but I'm going to ask very hard exactly on what basis you say that.

Simply because a divine creator cannot be physically proven does not mean that a divine creator is not a possibility.

Few people would argue that.

Aliens also can't be physically proven. I don't really have a stance about aliens other than them being a possibility.

Yet, if someone said "Well, I've been abducted by aliens", I doubt you'd say "That sounds plausible".

"Except you don't know that god is even an option. Further, are you making the claim that your interpretation of the natural world (i.e., no supernatural events) is equally valid, despite supposing the existence of a thing for which you have no evidence of even plausibility? I presumed you were saying that you had some personal, religious (i.e. supernatural) experiences."

Again, my aliens example. Their existence can neither be physically proven or disproven.

Perhaps--but we can assess credibility and, if I woke up one day thinking I'd been abducted, I'd rather think it more likely I was mistaken than that I had, in fact, been abducted.

Saying that a god's existence is not plausible is false.

I would rather strongly disagree.

If we are talking about the same God, we are talking about a divine power. In His power, he could literally say, "I don't like Mondays. I should get rid of Mondays," and do so. Haha, not that He would, but it's an example. Given the same divine power, he could also hide his existence.

Certainly. But that such a being is possible is not a grounds to believe in him. Otherwise, again, I could posit a nigh-infinite number of similar entities, and you'd be forced to accept them all as "plausible", yet that would be absurd.

Why would he do this? Faith. Faith is a spiritual thing. It's not based on seeing God and saying, "Oh look, He does exist. I guess I believe in Him now."

I agree entirely, but likely not for the same reasons...

Also, I haven't had "supernatural experiences". I would say that God has carved out particular paths and experiences for me.

What does that mean?

To imply that because I have no physical proof to believe in God, I should not believe in him is like saying, "Well, I wasn't in class today. I have no proof that there is a test tomorrow, so I shouldn't study for it." (I'm not saying you should believe "just in case" there is a god. Different concept). However, if one were to reflect on how long it's been since the last test and to remember short review activities that the teacher had introduced recently, one would probably interpret that a test is coming up.

That would be plausible--we know tests exist. You have a justification for thinking a test is coming up. It's entirely different with the "god" concept.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!