Criteria for evidence of a God.

Post Reply New Topic

I think the more I images I see from universe, the more I think it is possible.
I think the more information I read concerning the possibility of alternate dimensions, the more I think it is all crap.
As for evidence...dunno...

No evidence can exist.

If it were miraculous, it would either be unbelievable or a puzzle, or would be so to future generations.

If it were not miraculous, it could easily be taken as an artifact of chance.

Thus, the notion that a deity could be proven is nonsensical, we can argue that certain facts or arguments point in favor of such a being, but few would be considered proof.

From a christian point of view

Okay, here's the real scoop with God. There is only archeological proof of God other than The Bible, there is no scientific data. Faith isn't knowledge it's instinct. You just have a feeling there's a big guy helping us out.

Why do we believe in God. God helps people like me who have goals and dreams keep our hopes going when times are bad. I don't think I could function in a life without God to help me keep moving.

The interesting question is, why do atheists give a s@#$ about what christian families think? Maybe the Republican Party gives off a bad vibe of them. I will say that they are very s#$%tty examples of real christians. They just do whatever the priest tells them to rather than actually reading the book. There are a lot of liberal christians out there that are tolerant and respectful toward everyone's opinions. I guess I'm trying to say that I don't hate athiests, just don't go becoming the counterpart to some of the religious nutcases out there.

just_ben; I think I can sum up the primary difference in theists and atheists here pretty quick.

Atheist are mostly positivists, if its not tactile or can't be boiled in a test-tube or calculated with advanced algaebra (or quantified by a study) forget it. Both atheists and theists are willing to look into the negative as well in some ways but theists do it far more and both come to far different conclusions; atheists use their theories of the negative to reinforce their belief that only the positive exists and use Occam's Razor to shave anything off that seems superfluous. Theists look at the same facts atheists do but see far more depth of possibility in the negative (and if they're worth their salt they philosophize in ways that don't attack the positive but rather deal in broader context to place it in - they're trying to ultimately find out if there is a deeper paradigm and, due to natural inclinations, believe so themselves). They'd also argue that Occam's Razor and our perspective have nothing to do with anything aside from what we think and feel from moment to moment - that our thoughts don't create reality outward but that there is a real, tangible, 1 to 1 reality that we are ever probing for answers.

For me to believe that 'god' created life, the universe and everything (sorry just had to get a HHGTTG reference in) I would need said god to show me how it was done.

Second option would require my death and as I have only just found out about AS and my life finally makes sense I am in no hurry to find out if heaven and hell exist.