Evidence For The Existence of God

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 196
Topic's author
#1
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
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,

#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
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.
Topic's author
#3
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Where is your evidence?
#4
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
I experienced God two times, and He communicated with me. He changed my consciousness to do this. 
#5
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
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.



#6
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@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.

#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.



Topic's author
#8
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@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.
#9
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#10
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#11
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#12
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@janesix
I don't think that my testimony is evidence
Sure, that's your evidence for God, it's just not compelling evidence.

#13
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
What would be compelling evidence?
#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#15
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@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.



Topic's author
#16
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@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.
#17
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
If you experienced God for yourself, it would probably be compelling.
Topic's author
#18
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@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.
#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.




#20
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
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?
#21
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
I have never been presented with compelling evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist.
#22
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
If you think you and I are saying the same thing, then you do not understand what I am saying.
#23
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.

#24
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What was your god in 200BC, you know before Merriam Webster existed and show me the dictionary that claims it.
#25
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@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.

#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Not god, but God.

The reason you should accept that The Ultimate Reality is God is because this is how the concept is understood in theology. Should the scholars of geology define the language used by mathematicians? Of course not.

The Ultimate Reality is That which is Ultimately Real. The realest reality. The Truest Reality. 

It is true by itself, it is not contingent on anything else to be true. It is eternally true, never not true. It is The Truth itself.

So when I say Ultimate Reality, I am really talking about what is truly real. The ground that anything real stands on.

So God absolutely does exist, there is nothing you can be more sure of. Everything else? That is theology. One thing is certain. The existence of God is a given. It is not really up for debate. In fact, to say that God doesn't exist is self defeating and patently foolish. I am not saying these things because of strong feeling, personal opinion, or arrogance... I am saying this because it is absolutely true. Really though, God is absolutely True, and that is the point.

Now, if you could believe that.




#27
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The reason you should accept that The Ultimate Reality is God is because this is how the concept is understood in theology. Should the scholars of geology define the language used by mathematicians? Of course not.
First off, theology does not have a monolithic definition of god. Secondly, I don't recognize theologians as experts in reality, truth, or whatever else you might be defining god as, so, an appeal to their authority here is faulty.

The Ultimate Reality is That which is Ultimately Real. The realest reality. The Truest Reality. 
We already have a label for that: reality. I have no problem accepting reality exist. However, calling it "god" doesn't add anything to it and I wonder why we would do this. Let's say we were to accept reality and god were the same thing...then what?  Do we just call reality "god" instead of "reality"?  What edification does this achieve?  

It is true by itself, it is not contingent on anything else to be true. It is eternally true, never not true. It is The Truth itself.
You're asserting reality is not contingent and eternal, but...we don't know anything beyond the beginning of our own universe. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts! Additionally, it makes no sense to call reality 'truth'. Is a tree true? Are clouds false? Reality is not true or false, it just 'what is' and true and/or false are not applicable terms. So, whether conflating god and reality makes sense, you're justifications for doing so fall short.
#28
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.

If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong. 

You don't know what you are talking about. You don't even respect the subject matter.
#29
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.

If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong. 

You don't know what you are talking about. You don't even respect the subject matter.
I take it our conversation is over.  Thank you for the time you've invested in it.
#30
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
If God is the subject of theology, you don't poo poo away theology as being irrelevent to this discussion.

Yes, God is universally recognized as being The Ultimate Reality, and this is an understanding that crosses the divide of cultural and religious tradition. 

For you to poo poo it away as if you had even a basic level of education regarding the subject is assinine, because that is what we are discussing. If you won't accept the basic premise you are wasting your time. Believe whatever deluded thing you want to about God if it confirms your own silly superstitions concerning the subject.

The only atheist argument against God is to redefine what God means. Otherwise, denial or even uncertainty regarding the existence of God is revealed for what it is. Manifest foolishness.