What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[McCulloch]

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 230 by William]

It does if he he chooses to call that thing a god. Don't break your own rules, William. You like the idea of a thinking, creative planet. Maybe he likes an inter dimensional species leader. I call potatoes "god" so my gods exist too. We all get to play the same game.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 229 by JehovahsWitness]

To be fair, if the bible is to believed God does intend to provide such evidence. It seems as if He understands that some will only concede to direct undeniable personal contact.

Face to face contact with an alien/interdenominational species leader does not mean one is standing before GOD.

I don't understand your response, I made no mention of "standing before God" or of "an alien/interdenominational species leader". Can you explain the relevance of your comment.


JW

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 232 by JehovahsWitness]

The relevance, JW, is that William has his own favorite pet idea of what "god" is. Anything contrary to that idea gets treated with doubt. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY how everyone else treats whatever their own favorite pet idea of what a "god" is. You don't need a thousand bloated posts to say it, but that's what we have.

[William]

[Replying to post 232 by JehovahsWitness]

I don't understand your response, I made no mention of "standing before God"

You didn't? Okay. What did you mean when you wrote "direct undeniable personal contact."

...or of "an alien/interdenominational species leader"

Can you explain the relevance of your comment.

Sure. The connected relevance can be found in the following thread.

Talking About Aliens ... About Jesus Returning...

[William]

[Replying to post 233 by Inigo Montoya]

The relevance, JW, is that William has his own favorite pet idea of what "god" is.

The irony is that JW is aware of that. Her questions are therefore rhetorical. Rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered, but any opportunity for me to proselytize my 'pet' theory is always a good one.

Anything contrary to that idea gets treated with doubt. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY how everyone else treats whatever their own favorite pet idea of what a "god" is.

Exactly. Even the idea that "GODs don't exist".

At least my idea of a GOD has evidence to support its existence.

Is The Planet Earth a better example of GOD than YHWH?
Finding better ideas of GOD.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 235 by William]

Not really, William. Your idea of "god" is only analogous to other ideas of "god" because you've chosen to call our planet by the same name. Anything I choose to call "god" gets to have that in common as well. If you'd like to list all the ways the Earth shares attributes with any particular "god" I'll be happy to show you why that's silly, or at best, an unimpressive and largely meaningless comparison.

[William]

[Replying to post 236 by Inigo Montoya]

Not really, William. Your idea of "god" is only analogous to other ideas of "god" because you've chosen to call our planet by the same name. Anything I choose to call "god" gets to have that in common as well.

Where have I made the contrary argument Inigo? I am happy with whatever theist description of their GOD an accompanying script is. We can all point out the flaws in any of them, if indeed there are flaws to be pointed out.

If you'd like to list all the ways the Earth shares attributes with any particular "god" I'll be happy to show you why that's silly, or at best, an unimpressive and largely meaningless comparison.

All that say's is that you already accept none of them Inigo, perhaps because to accept any of them would require dropping the belief that GODs do not exist? That would be perfectly understandable to me, but would not be regarded as a terribly good argument, as far as I am concerned.

So in light of the above, my making such a list would be me wasting my time.

On the other hand, if YOU have any such list which you feel the Earth-as-a-GOD *fails* to fill, feel free to share it with the rest of the group. I for one am interested.

[Inigo Montoya]

...perhaps because to accept any of them would require dropping the belief that GODs do not exist?

This is a brilliantly concise summary of every problem your musings introduce.

Your sentence, and your issue, make ZERO sense because you're using a word that either A) doesn't represent any one coherent idea or B) can mean anything at all anyone needs it to mean.

If I follow the William formula, I call whatever I like best "god." I mean, if the limit of your criteria for belief in a "god" is to find something worth also calling "god," then I think this bucket of chicken is "god" and you can remove me from the insinuation of unwilling participant. Now I'm a believer in the Colonel's secret spices.

And nothing about my newfound belief advances or even addresses the role of a debate forum such as this.


PS. Neither does saying the Earth is a god (whatever that means) and makes more sense than this other group's idea of a god.

What are you even aiming for these days? You've learned how to insert jpegs and self-reference your own work as an authority to... your...own...work.

You like Earth as a god? Jives? Cool. Maybe we can focus on CHRISTIANITY AND APOLOGETICS in the forum now.

/endrant

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 232 by JehovahsWitness]

The relevance, JW, is that William has his own favorite pet idea of what "god" is. Anything contrary to that idea gets treated with doubt. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY how everyone else treats whatever their own favorite pet idea of what a "god" is. You don't need a thousand bloated posts to say it, but that's what we have.

Well, I do believe I refered to the God of the bible identifying Himself as who He is in reality to any who may be in doubt on the question, at least that is what I meant when I said ....

To be fair, if the bible is to believed God does intend to provide such evidence. It seems as if He understands that some will only concede to direct undeniable personal contact.

I took it as understood that "undeniable" implied the dispelling of all doubt on the question. Still I appreciate the talk of aliens or whatever, I haven't followed the thread or read the links so I guess some things have been "lost in translation".

JW

[Inigo Montoya]

To be fair, if the bible is to believed God does intend to provide such evidence.

So IF this one book is true, a monumental IF that I see no reason to just assume, then SOMEDAY this god intends to provide some evidence. Not to the billions who have lived and died already with no such evidence, obviously, but maybe tomorrow or the next day.

Got it.