Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What would be proof of God?

ken1122
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:05:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

Like anything else; the ability to experience his existence using one or more of my 5 senses.

Ken
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God. : :

I have met many of God's believers who have witnessed miracles that can only be performed by a Creator of them. I have witnessed many of them myself.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:37:04 PM, phoungyu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God. : :

I have met many of God's believers who have witnessed miracles that can only be performed by a Creator of them. I have witnessed many of them myself.

The key word is verifiable.
Please provide evidence for your claims and don't forget to mention when and by whom was the alleged miracle verified.

Anyway, claims of miracles are like popcorn at the drive-in. Everybody's got his own bucketful. Major religions certainly claim their share and this on its own is highly problematic.
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:53:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:44:22 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:37:04 PM, phoungyu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God. : :

I have met many of God's believers who have witnessed miracles that can only be performed by a Creator of them. I have witnessed many of them myself.

The key word is verifiable.
Please provide evidence for your claims and don't forget to mention when and by whom was the alleged miracle verified. : :

God doesn't need anyone to verify a miracle he performed for one of His chosen believers. That miracle was only meant for the individual that He chose to identify himself. Later on, that believer will hear his voice spoken through one of his chosen saints who has testified to His knowledge and learned about the past, present and future and also how He created everything.

Anyway, claims of miracles are like popcorn at the drive-in. Everybody's got his own bucketful. Major religions certainly claim their share and this on its own is highly problematic. : :

It's amazing to me how a farmer's crop can be ruined by hail and the insurance company awards them money for an "act of God" clause in their insurance policy with the farmer. But when it comes to someone walking away from a totaled out automobile crash, the insurance company fights to see if the automobile is at fault or the insured driver.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 8:57:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:53:19 PM, phoungyu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:44:22 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:37:04 PM, phoungyu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God. : :

I have met many of God's believers who have witnessed miracles that can only be performed by a Creator of them. I have witnessed many of them myself.

The key word is verifiable.
Please provide evidence for your claims and don't forget to mention when and by whom was the alleged miracle verified. : :

God doesn't need anyone to verify a miracle he performed for one of His chosen believers. That miracle was only meant for the individual that He chose to identify himself. Later on, that believer will hear his voice spoken through one of his chosen saints who has testified to His knowledge and learned about the past, present and future and also how He created everything.

Anyway, claims of miracles are like popcorn at the drive-in. Everybody's got his own bucketful. Major religions certainly claim their share and this on its own is highly problematic. : :

It's amazing to me how a farmer's crop can be ruined by hail and the insurance company awards them money for an "act of God" clause in their insurance policy with the farmer. But when it comes to someone walking away from a totaled out automobile crash, the insurance company fights to see if the automobile is at fault or the insured driver.

Precisely what I thought.
You haven't the faintest idea what is meant by verifiable.
Therefore, I have no interest whatsoever in your stories.
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:00:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:57:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:53:19 PM, phoungyu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:44:22 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:37:04 PM, phoungyu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God. : :

I have met many of God's believers who have witnessed miracles that can only be performed by a Creator of them. I have witnessed many of them myself.

The key word is verifiable.
Please provide evidence for your claims and don't forget to mention when and by whom was the alleged miracle verified. : :

God doesn't need anyone to verify a miracle he performed for one of His chosen believers. That miracle was only meant for the individual that He chose to identify himself. Later on, that believer will hear his voice spoken through one of his chosen saints who has testified to His knowledge and learned about the past, present and future and also how He created everything.

Anyway, claims of miracles are like popcorn at the drive-in. Everybody's got his own bucketful. Major religions certainly claim their share and this on its own is highly problematic. : :

It's amazing to me how a farmer's crop can be ruined by hail and the insurance company awards them money for an "act of God" clause in their insurance policy with the farmer. But when it comes to someone walking away from a totaled out automobile crash, the insurance company fights to see if the automobile is at fault or the insured driver.

Precisely what I thought.
You haven't the faintest idea what is meant by verifiable. : :

You haven't the faintest idea what a chosen believer is.

Therefore, I have no interest whatsoever in your stories. : :

And I have no interest whatsoever in your stories. I'm only in this forum for chosen believers who hear the voice of the Lord.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Prove that there is an Ultimate or Supreme Reality.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:07:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?
I think the notion of God is incoherent, Jane, and incoherence can't be corrected with evidence.

A proof that the universe was intelligently and deliberately created would be straightforward and I could set out a sketch for what sufficient evidence might look like. (Such evidence is badly lacking, by the way, and the universe is full of contrary evidence instead.)

However, proof that the creator is both supremely moral and the sole, absolute ruler of all life everywhere is impossible since those claims are incompatible, and the second claim isn't even objective.

Other claims, like the claim there is one such metaphysical creator, and not a consortium of metaphysical agencies, that it is omniscient and so on... don't seem provable at all.

Finally, proof that any theology has accurately characterised anything about metaphysics is easy -- but such evidence is also completely lacking, and in itself it wouldn't justify the worship of gods anyway; it'd only justify science revisiting theology for more clues as to how things worked. :D

I hope that may help. :D
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:05:22 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Prove that there is an Ultimate or Supreme Reality. : :

God doesn't need proof that He exists. He had His prophets and saints write and speak for Him to His chosen believers. All the rest of God's people will perish without proof.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:07:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?
I think the notion of God is incoherent, Jane, and incoherence can't be corrected with evidence.

A proof that the universe was intelligently and deliberately created would be straightforward and I could set out a sketch for what sufficient evidence might look like. (Such evidence is badly lacking, by the way, and the universe is full of contrary evidence instead.)

That's what I want to see, if you don't mind.

However, proof that the creator is both supremely moral and the sole, absolute ruler of all life everywhere is impossible since those claims are incompatible, and the second claim isn't even objective.

Other claims, like the claim there is one such metaphysical creator, and not a consortium of metaphysical agencies, that it is omniscient and so on... don't seem provable at all.

Finally, proof that any theology has accurately characterised anything about metaphysics is easy -- but such evidence is also completely lacking, and in itself it wouldn't justify the worship of gods anyway; it'd only justify science revisiting theology for more clues as to how things worked. :D

I hope that may help. :D
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:20:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't. : :

If you're looking for miracles that the heathens added to their New Testament, I'm sure you won't find anything like them today. God doesn't need anyone to walk on water to get one of His chosen believers to believe He exists. I have a believing friend who found a dime every single day for over a year. That wasn't the miracle, the miracle was that every time he found a dime, it was facing heads up. He told me that this verified that God must be real so now He believes that God exists and that He was the cause of the heads up dimes.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:32:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Please.
You do not know me from Adam. It's highly pompous of you to presume to know how I would react to this or that event and my deep psychological motivations.
Please.

This line of argumentation only casts light on the weakness of your case. And do notice the contrast: I am not here psychoanalyzing your or your posts.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:32:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Wow. Straight to threats of eternal damnation. That must be a record.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:40:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

One solid piece of factual evidence that unequivocally, unambiguously, verifiably, and without any other explanation pointed to the existence of not just any god, but your Christian God. Any questions?
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:41:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late. : :

No dead corpse will be raised. The flesh is of this world and will remain in this world after it perishes. The spirit of man will be raised in the Word of God, then placed in new flesh in Paradise ( New Heaven and Earth ).
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:42:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:40:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

One solid piece of factual evidence that unequivocally, unambiguously, verifiably, and without any other explanation pointed to the existence of not just any god, but your Christian God. Any questions?

My God isn't the Christian God.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:44:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:42:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:40:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

One solid piece of factual evidence that unequivocally, unambiguously, verifiably, and without any other explanation pointed to the existence of not just any god, but your Christian God. Any questions?

My God isn't the Christian God.

Ok, then I will amend it to read 'not just any god, but the god you profess to believe in'. My apologies for my misunderstanding.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:50:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:44:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:42:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:40:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

One solid piece of factual evidence that unequivocally, unambiguously, verifiably, and without any other explanation pointed to the existence of not just any god, but your Christian God. Any questions?

My God isn't the Christian God.

Ok, then I will amend it to read 'not just any god, but the god you profess to believe in'. My apologies for my misunderstanding.

Proof that the universe was created by an intelligent being. What would that look like?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:51:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:32:33 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Please.
You do not know me from Adam. It's highly pompous of you to presume to know how I would react to this or that event and my deep psychological motivations.
Please.

This line of argumentation only casts light on the weakness of your case. And do notice the contrast: I am not here psychoanalyzing your or your posts.

Clap Clap.. Nice Atheist Dodge.

You didn't address any point I made. for simplicity I'll sum up some of them.. God doesn't need to break the laws of nature, 2. how you recognize a miracle is based on the ignorance you have of the laws of nature, not what reality would actually allow.

So I take you concede my points.

So how would you verify that an event actually happening in reality in accordance to all the mysteries of the prescriptive laws of nature, (some of which unknown to us)?
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:42:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:40:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?

One solid piece of factual evidence that unequivocally, unambiguously, verifiably, and without any other explanation pointed to the existence of not just any god, but your Christian God. Any questions?

My God isn't the Christian God. : :

You're right. Jesus is not our Lord and Savior. God is.

Isaiah 40
28: Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary, his understanding is unsearchable.

Jesus died 2,000 years ago so it's impossible for him to be God.

Isaiah 44
6: Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Christians worship another god ( Jesus ) before our Creator, the Lord and Savior of us all. They all disobey God's commandments.

Isaiah 45
5: I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I gird you, though you do not know me,
6: that men may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.
7: I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.
8: "Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the skies rain down righteousness; let the earth open, that salvation may sprout forth, and let it cause righteousness to spring up also; I the LORD have created it.

Deuteronomy 6
4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;
5: and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

Christians love Jesus and reject the true gospel ( voice of the Lord ), the gospel that Jesus preached to God's chosen believers like yourself.

John 7
15: The Jews marveled at it, saying, "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"
16: So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;

1 John 2
27: but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.

God teaches His believers some knowledge before He guides them to His gospel that is preached by His saints. It is through the gospel that His believers can hear the future being told and how everything was created.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:04:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:32:52 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Wow. Straight to threats of eternal damnation. That must be a record.

We have all heard this before.

In one of William Lane Craig's debate his opponent said the eye witness accounts of God and Jesus were hallucinations, mass hallucinations.

Later in the rounds, William Lane Craig asks what evidence would convince his opponent there was a God.. The opponent answered "If I saw a 30 foot tall white robed being pointing right at me saying 'you are wrong I do exist" then I would believe.

William Lane Craig said, "Are you sure you wouldn't scream Oh my God I'm having one hell of an hallucination!"

Why don't you fools be at least honest. There is no evidence for God, because you will never accept anything as evidence for God.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:51:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:32:33 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Please.
You do not know me from Adam. It's highly pompous of you to presume to know how I would react to this or that event and my deep psychological motivations.
Please.

This line of argumentation only casts light on the weakness of your case. And do notice the contrast: I am not here psychoanalyzing your or your posts.

Clap Clap.. Nice Atheist Dodge.

You didn't address any point I made. for simplicity I'll sum up some of them.. God doesn't need to break the laws of nature, 2. how you recognize a miracle is based on the ignorance you have of the laws of nature, not what reality would actually allow.

So I take you concede my points.

So how would you verify that an event actually happening in reality in accordance to all the mysteries of the prescriptive laws of nature, (some of which unknown to us)?

It's good you have forsaken the cheap psychoanalysis, for which you have no talent, anyway.

Resurrection is a violation of the known laws of nature. It's in that sense that it is a miracle, like any other miracle prophets, Jesus or God Himself are said to have performed. One doesn't have to be disingenuous here.

I won't bother with point number 1, which I find utterly absurd. As for point 2, that distinction is unnecessary and in fact dysfunctional. If the purpose of a miracle is to persuade a human audience, for all intents and purposes, it's the transgression of what humans currently hold as laws of nature that counts and is the relevant threshold to be trespassed upon.

If clouds spontaneously rearrange themselves to form the sentence "Jesus is indeed the Son of God!", that would qualify, at least to me, it certainly would.
phoungyu
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:09:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:04:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:32:52 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Wow. Straight to threats of eternal damnation. That must be a record.

We have all heard this before.

In one of William Lane Craig's debate his opponent said the eye witness accounts of God and Jesus were hallucinations, mass hallucinations.

Later in the rounds, William Lane Craig asks what evidence would convince his opponent there was a God.. The opponent answered "If I saw a 30 foot tall white robed being pointing right at me saying 'you are wrong I do exist" then I would believe.

William Lane Craig said, "Are you sure you wouldn't scream Oh my God I'm having one hell of an hallucination!"

Why don't you fools be at least honest. There is no evidence for God, because you will never accept anything as evidence for God. : :

There's only one saint on this planet who knows that false prophets started the lies about Jesus being their God and saved all his people by dying on a cross.

Jesus was taught by our Creator ( Father ) that ALL His people will be saved from their wicked flesh, the inhabitants of earth.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:14:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:19:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:07:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?
I think the notion of God is incoherent, Jane, and incoherence can't be corrected with evidence.

A proof that the universe was intelligently and deliberately created would be straightforward and I could set out a sketch for what sufficient evidence might look like. (Such evidence is badly lacking, by the way, and the universe is full of contrary evidence instead.)

That's what I want to see, if you don't mind.

That wouldn't a proof of any particular theology, or even an argument for religion; just evidence that the universe (or some part of it) were designed intelligently. But sure.

We can define intelligence as the ability to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to solve new problems. Implicit in that definition is the idea that established knowledge and skills will be re-used promptly and efficiently on problems similar to ones previously solved, while new problems might require repeated experiment to solve.

We can think of design as the creation of a coherent, focused scheme to meet functional and/or aesthetic objectives within logistical and other environmental constraints. This definition accepts that the scheme itself may emerge as the process progresses.

Demonstration of intelligent design then, isn't just the demonstration of function and/or aesthetics in products. It's demonstration of a process continuously exhibiting:

1) Prudence: the ability to work with logistical constraints (e.g. the reuse and repurposing of materials);
2) Efficiency: the use and re-use of knowledge and skills (e.g. promptly reusing proven designs);
3) Rationality: analysis and synthesis -- dividing complex problems into subproblems, and assembling part solutions into wholes;
4) Discernment: sustaining the desirable while reducing or eliminating the undesirable;
5) Reflection: Either highly effective practice from the outset, or a tendency toward better practice improving as you go;
6) Dissemination: incremental improvements to methods and designs rolled out across subproducts, representing dedication to quality objective; and
7) Efficacy: an accelerating cohesion, focus, consistency and sophistication as methods improve and the scheme approaches fruition.

I mention these criteria in particular Jane, because part of my job involves providing design assurance services on projects designed to create something new. These projects may represent hundreds of millions of dollars of investment; they may be works in progress; using technologies and methods that are unfamiliar, new and untested, or even in development. it's my job to give expert judgement on whether the process is intelligent, coherent and making good progress toward meeting the initial vision that justified the investment, or whether things could be done better.

The relative importance of the criteria I mentioned above depend on how far along a project thinks it is. If we thought the universe were a design project with humanity as the ideal end-product, then the project should be well advanced and we could talk about how effective has been its process, and how prudently, efficiently and discerningly it got there -- and how much reflection and dissemination took place along the way.

But if we conceived that the universe were in early stages of development, then we could talk about how coherent is the initial vision, how rational the initial approach, how discerning the sense of progress, how strong the reflection and dissemination of lessons learned.

But either way, if the universe -- or even just life on Earth -- were a design project by some intelligent agency, I'd expect to see far more of all the criteria above than we actually see.

You haven't asked for why I don't believe these criteria are present, but I could go on at length for the kinds of evidence that would support each criterion, and why I think we're not seeing that, but rather seeing the opposite.

But when I have these discussions with Intelligent Design advocates, it seems clear to me that they (and their seminal books and blogsite propaganda) haven't thought much about intelligence, are ignorant about the processes and functions commonly associated with design, have no real desire to substantiate their position, but rather have a desired answer hunting for evidence, rather than evidence accountably and transparently eliminating any other possibility.

So I'm quite amenable to scientific evidence of intelligent design, Jane. I just don't think anyone advocating for ID is doing so honestly, intelligently, and in good faith.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:30:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:05:41 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:51:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:32:33 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:26:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:16:27 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:10:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 8:11:39 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:04:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Atheists, what would be proof of God for you, if anything?


I want to take a moment to reflect on an apparent disparity:

Supposedly, God thought it reasonable that during Moses and Jesus time, people were to come to believe in Him based off on witnessing a pletora of miracles. Not so today. So even by God's alleged own standards, one would have grounds for being sceptical.

My answer: an undisputed miracle whose source could only and evidently be traced back to God.

Mankind disputes everything. So a no evidence possible.

What do you mean when you say "miracle"

Something that could not have happened in obedience to the natural laws. Something that attests divine intervention.

Why would a God that created the universe and confirmed the natural laws have to break any of them? God wouldn't.

This perception of an event breaking the laws of nature is an argument from incredulity. It is a perception based upon ignorance of the natural laws.

When you say natural laws you imply you mean the prescriptive interactions of all nature. But how do when know an event breaks these laws? We don't, all you can attest to is the miraculous event breaks your understanding of the intrinsic interactions of the natural world in such a way that you can not describe the event using what YOU know of the "laws of nature" which is a set of rules describing previously observed events.

A miracle could be nothing more than seeing an event that we have not seen before and being unable to relate it to previous observations at that time.

But God has no reason to break the laws of nature. With omniscience God can very well make an event that obeys the natural laws but defies your ignorant understanding of them.


A verified resurrection would qualify - and, no, Jesus' doesn't.

Sure, admit if you had a verifiable first hand experience of a real miracle and then just deny such a thing has ever happened.

Face it. You would rather choose ignorance, and I don't knows, then ever admit there is a God. Not that there isn't justifiable reason to believe, Just you won't accept until forced to.

Every knee will drop one day don't worry. I bet seeing your dead corpse raised will be sufficient evidence for you then. But maybe then will be too little too late.

Please.
You do not know me from Adam. It's highly pompous of you to presume to know how I would react to this or that event and my deep psychological motivations.
Please.

This line of argumentation only casts light on the weakness of your case. And do notice the contrast: I am not here psychoanalyzing your or your posts.

Clap Clap.. Nice Atheist Dodge.

You didn't address any point I made. for simplicity I'll sum up some of them.. God doesn't need to break the laws of nature, 2. how you recognize a miracle is based on the ignorance you have of the laws of nature, not what reality would actually allow.

So I take you concede my points.

So how would you verify that an event actually happening in reality in accordance to all the mysteries of the prescriptive laws of nature, (some of which unknown to us)?

It's good you have forsaken the cheap psychoanalysis, for which you have no talent, anyway.

Resurrection is a violation of the known laws of nature. It's in that sense that it is a miracle, like any other miracle prophets, Jesus or God Himself are said to have performed. One doesn't have to be disingenuous here.

I won't bother with point number 1, which I find utterly absurd. As for point 2, that distinction is unnecessary and in fact dysfunctional. If the purpose of a miracle is to persuade a human audience, for all intents and purposes, it's the transgression of what humans currently hold as laws of nature that counts and is the relevant threshold to be trespassed upon.

If clouds spontaneously rearrange themselves to form the sentence "Jesus is indeed the Son of God!", that would qualify, at least to me, it certainly would.

I think you would say it is more likely to be the work of a pilot instead of God.