Present Evidence Here II

[kilodelta]

I feel that as Athiests we need to ultimately become more than athiests. 

I already am more than an atheist. 

[Givemeareason]

I already am more than an atheist.

Are you interested in helping others become more than atheists?.

[kilodelta]

Are you interested in helping others become more than atheists?.

I can't imagine anyone who is no more than an atheist.

[Givemeareason]

I can't imagine anyone who is no more than an atheist.

How about the fellow I just remember reading earlier who lost a family member.  He left religion and became atheist and then it sounded as if he died in despair.  Do you think he could have used some help in finding something more than just atheism?

[kilodelta]

How about the fellow I just remember reading earlier who lost a family member.  He left religion and became atheist and then it sounded as if he died in despair.  Do you think he could have used some help in finding something more than just atheism?

Atheism isn't supposed to help with anything but identify a non-acceptance position on god claims. How one acts based on not accepting god claims is entirely up to the individual based on everything else about that person. Atheism really does not tell too much about a person.

Additionally, god beliefs really do not seem to remedy a person's sense of loss when they lose someone close.

[Givemeareason]

Atheism isn't supposed to help with anything but identify a non-acceptance position on god claims. How one acts based on not accepting god claims is entirely up to the individual based on everything else about that person. Atheism really does not tell too much about a person.

Additionally, god beliefs really do not seem to remedy a person's sense of loss when they lose someone close.

Hahahaha... that clip was great!  In the end it makes no difference how we die.  But I am not dead yet.

[Odoital778412]

So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"

I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

[the_antithesis]

I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

This is an internet forum. It is a place for discussion, not for you to hawk your friends' stupid book.

[DeathandGrim]

I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

ogod William Dembski. I've had the displeasure of hearing him in debate.

Look how about you give us some reasons or at least give us an excerpt from this here book that you've read at least? Just present some evidence please :)

[Termin]

I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

  Not really unless you can give a link to the book itself ?

  The title is not promising

  Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science

  Arguments are not evidence.

[Odoital778412]

This is an internet forum. It is a place for discussion, not for you to hawk your friends' stupid book.

Um, I've never met Dembski, so I wouldn't actually call him a friend of mine.  Nor am I trying to 'hock' anyone's book.  The thread was asking for evidence, and I was aware of a book that included such evidence.  Therefore, I decided to provide the title so that anyone truly interested in the evidence can check it out.

[Odoital778412]

ogod William Dembski. I've had the displeasure of hearing him in debate.

Look how about you give us some reasons or at least give us an excerpt from this here book that you've read at least? Just present some evidence please :)

Yeah, me too.  He's not a very good debater at all.  Some people are good at things like that, and others aren't.  Whatcha gonna do?  Well, you can go on Amazon and check out the table of contents, but there is a lot included in the book.  It's been 4 or 5 years since I've read it, but I recall the use of the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is available online.  I also recall a chapter that argued for the existence of God on the basis of their existing an objective moral law.  There was a lot of material though.

[Odoital778412]

  Not really unless you can give a link to the book itself ?

  The title is not promising

  Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science

  Arguments are not evidence.

I'm assuming that the thread is not merely rhetorical, and that at least some people might be interested enough in the topic to seek out an actual book on the topic.  Perhaps you don't represent the person with that level of intellectual curiosity, but that fact wouldn't negate the possible usefulness of the book suggestion.

The title is "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science", and that would seem to be precisely what the thread was asking for.  So why would the title not be promising?  Or have you made an a priori judgment regarding the book?

Arguments are evidence.  They simply aren't physical evidence.  For example, if a logical deductive argument were given, all of its premises were true, and the words used are clear in their meaning, then the conclusion would be necessarily true.  That would actually be evidence, though I admit that it wouldn't be evidence that is physical in nature.  This kind of erroneous understanding of evidence is pretty common, particularly amongst those given to a materialist or naturalistic worldview.

[SGOS]

I'm assuming that the thread is not merely rhetorical, and that at least some people might be interested enough in the topic to seek out an actual book on the topic.  Perhaps you don't represent the person with that level of intellectual curiosity, but that fact wouldn't negate the possible usefulness of the book suggestion.

You typically see some version of this thread title somewhere in the archives of atheist forums.  I think it's an invitation to visiting theists to post their testimony in one trash area, so that they don't interrupt other threads with threadbare arguments.  At least, that's what I see as the purpose of this thread.  So it's unusual for me to even look here.  I think I advanced over 8 or 10 pages without reading anything to get to the final page.

Some atheists actually like discussing theist arguments, but over the years, it's rare that I find anything new in so called theists' evidence.  I think the last one sprung on me that threw me for a loop was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics about 10 or 12 years ago.  I had no way to respond because I had no idea what that Christian was talking about.  Turns out he didn't either as he couldn't even reference the name of the law, had no idea what it said, except that things become disorganized with the passage of time, and admitted that while he didn't understand it, it was considered proof for God.

I had to look start googling to find out what he was talking about, and finally found it, although by that time, the argument had long been debunked.  While I found it an interesting argument, it was just another false "lead" based on typical Christian ignorance of scientific information.  I've quit looking for evidence long ago.  Ever since I was a child, every bit of evidence ever presented to me on the existence of God turned out to be just some empty blather based on bad information or pure ignorance.

So I kind of see threads like this as trash compactors to keep the theist litter in one consolidated receptacle. They can post here and other interested atheists can point out the logical fallacies, and send them on their way.

[DeathandGrim]

I'm assuming that the thread is not merely rhetorical, and that at least some people might be interested enough in the topic to seek out an actual book on the topic.  Perhaps you don't represent the person with that level of intellectual curiosity, but that fact wouldn't negate the possible usefulness of the book suggestion.

The title is "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science", and that would seem to be precisely what the thread was asking for.  So why would the title not be promising?  Or have you made an a priori judgment regarding the book?

Arguments are evidence.  They simply aren't physical evidence.  For example, if a logical deductive argument were given, all of its premises were true, and the words used are clear in their meaning, then the conclusion would be necessarily true.  That would actually be evidence, though I admit that it wouldn't be evidence that is physical in nature.  This kind of erroneous understanding of evidence is pretty common, particularly amongst those given to a materialist or naturalistic worldview.

Arguments can be debunked. Objective evidence can not be. And since we're talking about something actually existing in our realm here I'd expect something that points to more of a physical nature.

I don't need to prove that the Eiffel Tower exists with rhetoric I can just show you it. If all I had was rhetoric to prove the existence of something then it's plausible to question its existence.

So if I tried to tell people Hogwarts exists, but can't even scrounge up a real photo of it, it's plausible to call me a dimwit and question my claim. And as such it's far more reasonable to assume my claim is false until proven true. Not True until proven false.

Yeah, me too.  He's not a very good debater at all.  Some people are good at things like that, and others aren't.  Whatcha gonna do?  Well, you can go on Amazon and check out the table of contents, but there is a lot included in the book.  It's been 4 or 5 years since I've read it, but I recall the use of the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is available online.  I also recall a chapter that argued for the existence of God on the basis of their existing an objective moral law.  There was a lot of material though.

The KCA doesn't even come close to proving a god though. If I wrote in a notebook that Voldemort created the universe then I have just as much reason to argue that HE is the cause for the universe with the KCA. It's also a faulty argument.