Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 09:00 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
If God would want us to know he exists he would show us. If not then no reason to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
I was born blind (about 25% vision). I now see at about 55% and am classed as partially sighted. I have spent some time around fully blind people. ... if I take 3 objects which are identical weights and shape and laid them out, lets say, blue, red and green snooker balls, in front of myself in that order and then put a blindfold on. Someone could enter the room and tell me the sequence of colours. I would ask them to rearrange them in any order whilst still blindfolded. A new person could come in and tell me the new order. I could remove the blindfold to see if it was true, replace it, have that person rearrange them and leave ... This is a process to show everyones acceptance of the same colour which I can check myself.

Slightly different for a blind person but a similar process would be, make the snooker balls three different weights. Instead of lifting a blindfold, the blind person could 'look' at the colour sequence he has been told by lifting the balls in order. This would give confirmation to the blind person that the other people in the test who didn't touch the snooker balls were all reaching the same conclusions of colour using sight, thus proving colours exist and sighted people agree on them.

The question how do you describe red, to a blind person is fucking ridiculous, as red IS the description. It is as unreasonable as asking what the number 16 smells like. It is a complete logical falicy.

Explain this to your friend and ask him to propose a test of his own which proves evidence of God. ... Then tell him he's a fucking idiot! Big Grin

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
13-02-2014, 09:32 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
What the fuck is this "x-tard friend" bullshit that you preface every bullshit x-tard assertion you float in this forum with?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 07:29 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  We essentially just had this thread two weeks ago, hence my earlier comment.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-a-creator

Christian friend: "Thank you for sharing, I am reviewing this thread."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 08:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tell your "friend" before you look for something, you have to know what you're looking for.
You oh, pardon me, "your friend" has not defined what a a god is, or what the word means.

Christian Friend: "I'll let you define God."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 10:01 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 09:26 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I was born blind (about 25% vision). I now see at about 55% and am classed as partially sighted. I have spent some time around fully blind people. ... if I take 3 objects which are identical weights and shape and laid them out, lets say, blue, red and green snooker balls, in front of myself in that order and then put a blindfold on. Someone could enter the room and tell me the sequence of colours. I would ask them to rearrange them in any order whilst still blindfolded. A new person could come in and tell me the new order. I could remove the blindfold to see if it was true, replace it, have that person rearrange them and leave ... This is a process to show everyones acceptance of the same colour which I can check myself.

Slightly different for a blind person but a similar process would be, make the snooker balls three different weights. Instead of lifting a blindfold, the blind person could 'look' at the colour sequence he has been told by lifting the balls in order. This would give confirmation to the blind person that the other people in the test who didn't touch the snooker balls were all reaching the same conclusions of colour using sight, thus proving colours exist and sighted people agree on them.

The question how do you describe red, to a blind person is fucking ridiculous, as red IS the description. It is as unreasonable as asking what the number 16 smells like. It is a complete logical falicy.

Explain this to your friend and ask him to propose a test of his own which proves evidence of God. ... Then tell him he's a fucking idiot! Big Grin

Christian Friend: "So balls of different weights represent different colors?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 05:50 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Christian Friend: "Breakthrough! Not being able to describe doesn't mean God doesn't exist."

This is true. I similarly cannot disprove invisible pink unicorns, leprechauns, and literally an infinite number of other things. That doesn't mean we need to go on assuming they exist.


(13-02-2014 05:50 PM)fmudd Wrote:  "Now what would you consider evidence?

Anything that would demonstrate God's existence without us having to assume he's there in the first place. All of the existing "evidence" requires that assumption, or other similar assumptions for force the conclusion of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 09:59 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tell your "friend" before you look for something, you have to know what you're looking for.
You oh, pardon me, "your friend" has not defined what a a god is, or what the word means.

Christian Friend: "I'll let you define God."

If she's the one asserting God, she needs to define it. I'm not going to go looking under my couch, picking up every piece of lint or cat fur and ask "Is this it?".

You ever notice how people keep God suspiciously vague when talking to skeptics?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 06:30 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
I have an imaginary friend who wants to stick his nose in.

My Imaginary Friend: "No I don't, fuck off, I haven't got a nose, I don't exist!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 12:54 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
God is kept vague for a good reason, the more specific the description the easier it is to falsify.

Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Their gods resided atop the highest peak of Mount Olympus, quite literally a mountain that really exists in Greece. The problem with saying that your gods live up there, is that eventually people were able to actually get up there; and no gods were to be found. Remember too that this applies to the Abrahamic god as well, for the same god that felt threatened enough by the encroachment into Heaven (which existed atop the firmament, the solid dome encompassing the world, prevalent in many ancient cosmologies) by the Tower of Babylon, said not a peep when we put men on the moon.

This is why you'll see more 'intellectual' takes on the god concept with ideas like Deism, Pantheism, and Panpsychism. This is why 'new age' and eastern religious ideas like 'the grounding of all being' (espoused by Brahma) get a lot of traction with some.

Of course, their one unifying similarity is this; they are all unfalsifiable. The Greek Pantheon was falsifiable, it was claimed they lived atop Mount Olympus, and when we scaled that mountain we found no such thing. The claim was shown to be false.


The definition of god is always kept vague or out of reach, lest science kill it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: