Present Evidence Here II

[Cassia]

Someone once asked me, "what evidence would be required for you to believe in god?" I answered, "by your own definition of god, wouldn't he know the answer to that question?"

Frankly, I would love to live forever in heaven with all the family and pets, where the fresh garden tomatoes taste like they did in Italy and to become knowledgeable on the workings of the entire universe.

I just don't see how I am any different from a ladybug, a dolphin or a Neanderthal (unless there was a ladybug jesus to save their dammed ladybug souls.)

[SGOS]

Someone once asked me, "what evidence would be required for you to believe in god?"

Evidence doesn't cut it.  I need proof, unassailable proof.

[M]

If on his return Jesus had a stroll around on the English channel to help border force and the RNLI rescue migrants from drowning, I'd be convinced.

[rosso]

Fun read..in my mind there is absolutely no proof..remember that dude Randy the magician..he asked show me proof that you have psychic powers and I'll give ya a million bucks..

[Shiranu]

Facinating topic title, now that I understand the topic much better...

"Evidence" of God is a bit silly, as all evidence of God is self-evident and revealed and thus up to the individual to interpret; and to be clear, that is aimed far more at Christians who feel the need to try and use natural phenomenon (even if sometimes accurate) as evidence than anyone else.

Evidence without context is utterly without value at worse, harmful at best.

What we need to look for are "proofs" - not just in the colloquial sense of the word of "prove it!" but also in the logical definition - "A formal use of deduction, incorporating inductive logic as well as mathematical logic, used to establish the validity of a statement."

Edit - As SGOS actually wonderfully put it before.

[PopeyesPappy]

Facinating topic title, now that I understand the topic much better...

"Evidence" of God is a bit silly, as all evidence of God is self-evident and revealed and thus up to the individual to interpret; and to be clear, that is aimed far more at Christians who feel the need to try and use natural phenomenon (even if sometimes accurate) as evidence than anyone else.

Evidence without context is utterly without value at worse, harmful at best.

What we need to look for are "proofs" - not just in the colloquial sense of the word of "prove it!" but also in the logical definition - "A formal use of deduction, incorporating inductive logic as well as mathematical logic, used to establish the validity of a statement."

Edit - As SGOS actually wonderfully put it before.

The problem with this is theists have several logical arguments including the cosmological argument, the teleological argument (design argument), the ontological argument, the moral argument, the argument from contingency, the argument from consciousness, and the fine-tuning argument to support their beliefs. Most of them believe these arguments are reasonable indications of God's existence, if not definitive proofs. Most skeptics believe these arguments fail to provide empirical evidence and rest on questionable premises.

[Shiranu]

The cosmological argument and teleological/FTA arguments both provide sufficent evidence; the moral argument - while not a statement of evidence - is ultimately still a truth... as has been made more than abundantly clear as of late.

Most skeptics believe these arguments fail to provide empirical evidence and rest on questionable premises.

That's fair, but it does ultimately remain a statement about the skeptic rather than the information.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the theists get testy I could shoot them.

[Shiranu]

...the moral argument - while not a statement of evidence - is ultimately still a truth... as has been made more than abundantly clear as of late.

[Cassia]

The proof that storm god Yahweh is now "The Lord" is self-evident? LOL. It is more like a comical failure. The "proof" is presented as a series of miracles that defy nature and prophecies that have failed miserably. We can go ahead and list them, but it is a very long ridiculous list of lies. After his temple gets destroyed and he is defeated by the Roman gods once again, they bring on "the son" who also goes around doing cheap parlor tricks, but at least he doesn't need a temple. We can just sacrifice him off and have him rise again. Not unique, but a very fashionable idea at the time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Opened a closet and found wrapping paper, ribbons, and tape. I inferred a present from that.

[Shiranu]

The proof that storm god Yahweh is now "The Lord" is self-evident? LOL. It is more like a comical failure.

That's fair, but it does ultimately remain a statement about the skeptic rather than the information.
 

Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with Thomas Aquinas or John Lennox?

, they bring on "the son" who also goes around doing cheap parlor tricks,

...

That's fair, but it does ultimately remain a statement about the skeptic rather than the information.
 

[drunkenshoe]

E: I'm trying to be funny here, and no reaction at all... :/

[Unbeliever]

I like a nice bouncy bounce! 🤣

[aitm]

I find myself less Interested in the "if exists" over the "worthiness" of being called a god requiring worship. If incompetence, ineptness, immoral to his own proclaimed morals, indifference to suffering despite his proclamation of his ability to cure but won't, exhibiting the very human emotions and failures he himself proclaims are sins upon those he judges.

 He is the epitome of a frivilous, buffoonish caricature of an immense ineptitude in his own inability to deliver any sense of what he proposes, and promises. A rather Donald trump of gods, who promise that which he cannot deliver, will not deliver and has never delivered upon.

We owe no such allegiance to a clown calling himself a god. And to actually spend time to try to justify the existence of a worthless god is perhaps the ultimate of human arrogance, coupled with such ignorance of his actual book to render the person making said argument even more of a fool and quite ignorant of what he is actually not getting in return for said worship.

At least an inert rock has the same potential to produce the same results without any such grandiose proclamations of such actions that have never happened as to render the whole of the argument an exercise in sheer stupidity based on wishful thinking for a god incapable of doing what you hope he can, but won't do.

A real god, should such exists, with real omnipotence and omniscience would look upon humanity, understanding it's frailty, it's fears, and it's incomparable courage in the face of certain death and realize he/she/it, has no moral authority to judge humanity.