Evidence For The Existence of God

Author: Goldtop ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 196
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    Based on the definition of "Evidence", what compelling evidence can you offer for the likelihood of God's existence?

    Contrary to that, what compelling evidence can you offer for the likelihood of God's non-existence?


    Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

    Evidence is the information which is used in a court of law to try to prove something. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

    1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

    2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication

    3. law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents,

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 294
    Forum posts: 8,928
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    God is real but is much closer to the 'devil' character in the scriptures of Abrahamic religions than we like to admit.

    God is 'the beast'. God is 666. God IS the physically supreme being of reality that none can conquer and all must surrender to and she is without love or mercy but nonetheless feels 'affection' which isn't the same as love but is more admiration combined with desire towards people who are wise.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @RationalMadman
    Where is your evidence?
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Goldtop
    I experienced God two times, and He communicated with me. He changed my consciousness to do this. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,318
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    First piece of evidence is understanding what God means.

    The Ultimate Reality
    The Supreme Being
    The Truth


    If you can not see how this One True God exists simply by recognizing its name, there are a number of proofs that are contingent on accepting this definition.

    If you can't accept this definition, you get nothing else.



  • SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 645
    2
    3
    6
    SkepticalOne avatar
    SkepticalOne
    --> @Goldtop
    1)If no evidence is expected then there can be no evidence for or against.
    2)If evidence is reasonably expected then lack of it is evidence against existence.

    "God" needs to be defined before we can determined which scenario above is applicable.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,318
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @SkepticalOne
    Pretty much what I'm saying.

    And God is understood in the context of theology as The Ultimate Reality. Jew, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Baha'i, certain Hindu sects, etc. Etc.

    Besides that, this is The Supreme Being, and the only one I recognize as God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

    If God is defined to be something other than this, it isn't really the God that any but maybe the superstitious or uneducated believe.



  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @SkepticalOne
    "God" needs to be defined before we can determined which scenario above is applicable.

    Couldn't agree with you more, and we probably both suspect a valid definition may never present itself unless we have some hard evidence, and that's kind of what we're looking for whether it's evidence for Zeus or YHWY or any other. For example, Mopac said...

    If you can't accept this definition, you get nothing else. The Ultimate Reality
    His version of God appears to originate from a dictionary whereas Jane said...

    He communicated with me
    She has a very different audible view yet both could be referring to the same God, but neither are really presenting any hard evidence. It really doesn't matter which God is in question, the important thing is to weigh the evidence these folks are presenting as best they can for any God.
    As yet, I see no compelling evidence.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Goldtop
    The only reason I replied was you stated that "experience" was evidence. 

    I don't think that my testimony is evidence. Or anyone else's.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @Mopac
    First piece of evidence is understanding what God means.

    The Ultimate Reality
    The Supreme Being
    The Truth

    We have previously established that God and Truth are not defined as synonyms in the Dictionary.

    Your evidence is dismissed.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @RationalMadman
    God IS the physically supreme being of reality
    Kind of like a Sasquatch, that no such thing has ever been shown to exist.

    Your evidence is dismissed.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @janesix
    I don't think that my testimony is evidence
    Sure, that's your evidence for God, it's just not compelling evidence.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Goldtop
    What would be compelling evidence?
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,318
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Goldtop

    "Where I found truth, there found I my God, who is the truth itself



    God is the truth in its absolute fullness. He, therefore, is the primary, the original truth, the source of all truth, the truth in all truth. He is the ground of the truth – of the true being "



    These are words from some of the most respected theologians of the last couple thousand years, and if Inwere to take the time to, I could not only present a very thorough list of similar quotations, but I could also use scripture to demonstrate that The Truth is God.

    So you are very wrong, and a clue to this is that you don't seem to see what The Ultimate Reality and The Truth have in common.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @Mopac
    These are words from some of the most respected theologians of the last couple thousand years, and if Inwere to take the time to, I could not only present a very thorough list of similar quotations, but I could also use scripture to demonstrate that The Truth is God.
    First of all, I have no respect for theology let alone theologians. It doesn't matter what you quote from, it's not compelling evidence. Neither are Scriptures or the Dictionary, they are merely references.



  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @janesix
    That's what we're looking for, compelling evidence.

    If I had never seen a duck before and asked you to show me compelling evidence, wouldn't you show me a duck? That's compelling.

    But, if all you said is that you believe you heard one communicate with you, that wouldn't be compelling.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Goldtop
    If you experienced God for yourself, it would probably be compelling.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @janesix
    But, I would nave no idea it was God that I was experiencing. What references do I have? None. What evidence do I have of God? None. How would I know the voices in my head were that of God or maybe my mind was going insane? These and many more issues, problems and contradictions need to be addressed before anyone's claims of having been communicated by God can be considered valid or even sane.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,318
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Goldtop
    In other words, you don't respect the subject matter all, and you are not really interested in understanding it. You are approaching the subject of God in an incredibly arbitrary manner.




  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    All these millions of people who allegedly talk to god and never once has he informed any of them the cure for baby cancer, who woulda thunk it?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,967
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Goldtop
    I have never been presented with compelling evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist.
  • SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 645
    2
    3
    6
    SkepticalOne avatar
    SkepticalOne
    --> @Mopac
    If you think you and I are saying the same thing, then you do not understand what I am saying.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,318
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @SkepticalOne
    The thing we both can agree on is that God needs to be defined.

    And if you define God as anything other than The Ultimate Reality or one of the many ways of saying that same thing, you are defining God to be one of the countless gods who have been refuted for centuries by those who profess to believe in this God.


    If you don't believe this God, you aren't standing on anything. Maybe you don't see that now, but if you can accept that The Truth is God, and that is literally what the monotheistic God is, it should be obvious.


    Whatever The Ultimate Reality is, that is God.

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Mopac
    What was your god in 200BC, you know before Merriam Webster existed and show me the dictionary that claims it.
  • SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 645
    2
    3
    6
    SkepticalOne avatar
    SkepticalOne
    --> @Mopac
    Whatever The Ultimate Reality is, that is God
    What is Ultimate reality (and how is this different than reality) and why should we label this "God"? I see no legitimate reason to accept there is something above reality or that a god (any god) should be conflated with it or reality as it can be observed.
     

    If you don't believe this God, you aren't standing on anything

    You've given no reason why believing "this God" provides any sort of basis. This is the disconnect you need to overcome if you really want to have a meaningful (and reasonable) conversation with those who do not share your view.