Evidence for God

Okay well let's talk about this then the concept of God must be older than 2000 years if there were people worshiping gods in the bronze Age which was 3,700 years ago. Jesus is 2,000 years old other religions including the god of Abraham are older than that. If you can't figure out what people are saying or you don't understand the concepts involved in religion in general don't freaking come here and argue about them. The concept of God is much older than 2,000 years old and if you don't actually believe that then you are an idiot because there is actually archeology that supports the fact gods were worship longer than 2,000 years ago whether the gods exist or not they were worshiped so the concept existed.

Every atheist was present for the beginning of every religion what a miracle.

That didn’t answer my question. I’ll be more precise. How do you distinguish between God conceptually and God which you claim isn’t conceptual?

How do you distinguish between your wife  conceptually and your wife which you claim isn’t conceptual?

Nature implies that there is a God for you, and it is you.

Initially you  agree with what I've always told you.

And then you go and contradict.

You are losing me because you seem to be asking me about something which is evidently obvious. Allow me to show you how I view your question and you can tell me if I'm mistaking your intent.

Let's substitute "wife" for God. I know you'll say my wife is physically here, but hold on, that is irrelavant to my argument.

How do you distinguish between God conceptually and God which you claim isn’t conceptual?

Well first. I know which things in my mind are MY concepts. I made them up. I remember making them up. They did not exist until I made them up. They don't change unless I change them. They never surprise me, or deviate from my conception of them.

Now God preceded me. He doesn't follow what I think He should be. He surprised me, I constantly have to adjust my conception of Him to keep it accurate.

Likewise, I have a concept of my wife in my mind. But she sometimes surprises me by being different from my conception of her. I know the concept of her in my mind is NOT her, no matter how accurate to reality it may be.

So asking me how I can tell the difference between my concept of my wife and my actual wife is, well, weird. Only a person with a tenuous grasp on reality would have any problem distinguishing.

Because you're a strict materialist atheist, you probably God has no interaction with me that I can perceive. This is not true.

Did I misunderstand you?

No I wouldn’t. That’s it. Your wife isn’t an abstract (apart from how she’s defined) unlike God which is completely abstract. 

Would you consider him genocidal then?

I’m sure there’s actual philosophical terms that we’re discussing, but it will probably take too much time for me trying to find what they’re called.

You would agree your wife isn’t abstract though apart from how we define her, correct? 

To me your wife is your wife (by definition)...

...and I know she isn’t completely abstract unless she’s a fictional person.

Okay can you tell me what interactions God has with you? I assume It will be on par with your wife.  

Well, it will be very easy for you if you simply insist your beliefs are reality. I don't mind you "winning" that way. God is not "abstract" at all. In fact, I don't even know what "abstract" means as you use it here.

No. I may not be an Einstein, but I'm certainly not that stupid. Why would I consider that?

True, but using formal terminology would clutter the process, and would make people not familiar with the jargon less able to follow.

What does "abstract" mean. Not in existence? Because God exists.

And my God is my God by definition.

So you are using "abstract" in terms of non-existent. But is it logical to insist on your conclusion while we argue your argument? Should we not establish the truth of  your premises first, and then see if your conclusion follows necessarily from them?

Much deeper. God created me with his very "hands". He sustains me. The life force/power in my body and mind are sourced from Him. He soothes me when I'm afraid or dejected, He directs when I'm lost. He protects my loved ones. He gives me peace that passes understanding. He understands me.

I would have to lie to say I was unsure God exists.

Why could you not have used "non-existent"? How was "abstract" a more honest choice? We already know you don't think God exists, how can a premisein your argument that God doesn't exist, be your conclusion?? (And yes, there is a name for that logical fallacy.)

If you think my arguments success depends on your credulity, then I will have no problem leaving you to your beliefs that you conflate with reality. I just thought you were about to logically show me how God couldn't exist, instead of simply telling me in a dodgy way, that I must be wrong because - you don't think God exists.

Bummer.

How do you know that your experience of God isn't merely an illusion?

This seems to be the key point. There is a difference between what makes sense theologically, versus what believers actually have in mind when they think about God.

I am sure that believers have experiences that assure them, from their point of view, that a being exists - called "God" because of the connotations of that word.

But if we really follow out the implications of a being, absolutely omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent -

by definition this is such an abstract concept

that we have no way to know that whatever our intuitive idea about God really has any relation to what God "really is."

You are not looking at the right places.

Is this what you think about God? or is this someone's assumption about God? Some of these terms are simply unnecessary.

Believers have "faith" because their concrete ideas about God are mere arbitrary imaginings with no basis in experience nor in reason

We do not know anything about what created humanity

nor do we know anything about that being - if there is one

- that looks down upon human affairs and guides them from above.

The intuitions or direct experiences of these can only have as much weight as any other intuition.

If your ideas about something are entirely untethered from your mind and from your senses, what can it mean to say you believe in it? Why believe it rather than something else? To believe in that sense simply means to affirm. The word "God" being ultimately reduced to a mere sound uttered, the idea of belief becomes nothing more than an affirmation.

I did answer.

I don't feel like going through my moral epistemology.

So you know because your senses don't deceive you? How do you know your senses aren't deceiving you? How do you know your experience isn't an illusion?

You can't just say you know because you know.

which god should you follow ? how do you decide ?