• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

zyzygy said:
I am here because my mind is open to proof. That is why I am an atheist.
Click to expand...

Really? alright let's see if we can make any headway.

Can you tell me what kind of material or information you'd consider as possibly serving as evidence for God? what might convince you personally?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Really? alright let's see if we can make any headway.

Can you tell me what kind of material or information you'd consider as possibly serving as evidence for God? what might convince you personally?
Click to expand...

Still trying to end the table instead of providing evidence. No one is the least bit surprised.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Really? alright let's see if we can make any headway.

Can you tell me what kind of material or information you'd consider as possibly serving as evidence for God? what might convince you personally?
Click to expand...

Actually, this dodge is not new. I have seen it multiple times over the years from other pop theologians. All it really says is that the person does not have any objective reality-based evidence to present for their “God”, so they turn the table upside down in response so that they don’t have to continue a REASONED discussion ,
The very word evidence implies that it must be presented first before a judgment can be made.
Any lawyer who first asked the judge what sort of evidence he would accept would be upbraided by the judge who would tell him to offer his or her evidence at which point the judge would make his or her decision as to its applicability. That’s what evidence is all about, no matter how many word games you play with it.
 
If god manifested himself a la Old Testament then it would convince me. I strongly ssupect that the OT is fiction but I am open to proof of the contrary.
 
This is quite eye opening and a new crack in the already crumbling armor of the atheist belief system.

Atheists are demanding evidence and there is a lot of that, but seem quite incapable of characterizing such evidence.

If they would tell us what kind of thing they'd regard as evidence then we might stand some chance here, but because everybody has their own views I certainly have no idea what to actually present.

If the atheists cared then surely they'd want to avoid situations where we present something only to find that that particular thing doesn't meet that particular atheist's expectation for evidence?

I do not know how to present evidence to someone when that person has absolutely no idea whatsoever what such evidence might look like, it seems the atheists are content to treat this as a "guess the number game" when they have some criteria about the number but refuse to tell us what it is.

I think the atheists are ultimately asking this question: "Please show me some kind of evidence that will convince me that God exists", and without me knowing what would convince that person I can hardly answer that question in a timely manner.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
This is quite eye opening and a new crack in the already crumbling armor of the atheist belief system.

Atheists are demanding evidence and there is a lot of that, but seem quite incapable of characterizing such evidence.

If they would tell us what kind of thing they'd regard as evidence then we might stand some chance here, but because everybody has their own views I certainly have no idea what to actually present.

If the atheists cared then surely they'd want to avoid situations where we present something only to find that that particular thing doesn't meet that particular atheist's expectation for evidence?

I do not know how to present evidence to someone when that person has absolutely no idea whatsoever what such evidence might look like, it seems the atheists are content to treat this as a "guess the number game" when they have some criteria about the number but refuse to tell us what it is.

I think the atheists are ultimately asking this question: "Please show me some kind of evidence that will convince me that God exists", and without me knowing what would convince that person I can hardly answer that question in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

There is no atheist belief system. Another strawman.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Really? alright let's see if we can make any headway.

Can you tell me what kind of material or information you'd consider as possibly serving as evidence for God? what might convince you personally?
Click to expand...

What convinces someone personally is irrelevant. Facts are no reliant on convincing individuals.
 
devildavid said:
What convinces someone personally is irrelevant. Facts are no reliant on convincing individuals.
Click to expand...

I think you might understand better if you watched this movie David.



I think Jack Warden played you in that movie David.
 
Last edited:
God appearing in the sky above the whole world and on every TV, computer, laptop, tablet and phone screen would convince me. Curing all children of cancer and amputees growing lost limbs would be a bonus. But all we have is the Bible.
 
zyzygy said:
God appearing in the sky above the whole world and on every TV, computer, laptop, tablet and phone screen would convince me. Curing all children of cancer and amputees growing lost limbs would be a bonus. But all we have is the Bible.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, in that case I cannot provide evidence that will convince you.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
This is quite eye opening and a new crack in the already crumbling armor of the atheist belief system.

Atheists are demanding evidence and there is a lot of that, but seem quite incapable of characterizing such evidence.

If they would tell us what kind of thing they'd regard as evidence then we might stand some chance here, but because everybody has their own views I certainly have no idea what to actually present.

If the atheists cared then surely they'd want to avoid situations where we present something only to find that that particular thing doesn't meet that particular atheist's expectation for evidence?

I do not know how to present evidence to someone when that person has absolutely no idea whatsoever what such evidence might look like, it seems the atheists are content to treat this as a "guess the number game" when they have some criteria about the number but refuse to tell us what it is.

I think the atheists are ultimately asking this question: "Please show me some kind of evidence that will convince me that God exists", and without me knowing what would convince that person I can hardly answer that question in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

Actually, this dodge is not new. I have seen it multiple times over the years from other pop theologians. All it really says is that the person does not have any objective reality-based evidence to present for their “God”, so they turn the table upside down in response so that they don’t have to continue a REASONED discussion ,
The very word evidence implies that it must be presented first before a judgment can be made.
Any lawyer who first asked the judge what sort of evidence he would accept would be upbraided by the judge who would tell him to offer his or her evidence at which point the judge would make his or her decision as to its applicability. That’s what evidence is all about, no matter how many word games you play with it.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
This is quite eye opening and a new crack in the already crumbling armor of the atheist belief system.

Atheists are demanding evidence and there is a lot of that, but seem quite incapable of characterizing such evidence.

If they would tell us what kind of thing they'd regard as evidence then we might stand some chance here, but because everybody has their own views I certainly have no idea what to actually present.

If the atheists cared then surely they'd want to avoid situations where we present something only to find that that particular thing doesn't meet that particular atheist's expectation for evidence?

I do not know how to present evidence to someone when that person has absolutely no idea whatsoever what such evidence might look like, it seems the atheists are content to treat this as a "guess the number game" when they have some criteria about the number but refuse to tell us what it is.

I think the atheists are ultimately asking this question: "Please show me some kind of evidence that will convince me that God exists", and without me knowing what would convince that person I can hardly answer that question in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

Double-talk. : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense
2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language

YUP!
 
devildavid said:
What convinces someone personally is irrelevant. Facts are no reliant on convincing individuals.
Click to expand...

Here's a better clip David, and perhaps it was actually Lee J. Cobb who played you, he sure talks a lot about facts David but quite a few people disagree with him, sounding familiar?

 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
If god manifested himself a la Old Testament then it would convince me. I strongly ssupect that the OT is fiction but I am open to proof of the contrary.
Click to expand...

Considering the OT contains truth, that would be a lie, one of your many...
 
zyzygy said:
God appearing in the sky above the whole world and on every TV, computer, laptop, tablet and phone screen would convince me. Curing all children of cancer and amputees growing lost limbs would be a bonus. But all we have is the Bible.
Click to expand...

Don't worry...the time is coming but then it'll be too late...

"And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand?" Revelation 6:15-17
 
Elvira said:
Don't worry...the time is coming but then it'll be too late...

"And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand?" Revelation 6:15-17
Click to expand...

“The time has been coming” for 2000 years. When will you God types her over your delusions?
 
watsup said:
“The time has been coming” for 2000 years. When will you God types her over your delusions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, God has a valid reason for that, too...

"Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9
 
watsup said:
“The time has been coming” for 2000 years. When will you God types her over your delusions?
Click to expand...

The passage is in the past tense. Hid themselves. When did this happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom