Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[olavisjo]

.

Evidence of a or thousands of gods?

You see evidence is evidence.

Cavemen didn't understand the world around them and had no idea of the universe but they could see and think and imagine, so they came up with a reason for all the things they didn't understand and they called that reason gods.
Why is that so hard to understand?

It is a simple question, what evidence would you expect to see?

[Joab]

.

Evidence of a or thousands of gods?

You see evidence is evidence.

Cavemen didn't understand the world around them and had no idea of the universe but they could see and think and imagine, so they came up with a reason for all the things they didn't understand and they called that reason gods.
Why is that so hard to understand?

It is a simple question, what evidence would you expect to see?

It is a simple question that I gave a simple answer to and then elaborated on for clarity.

Did you not understand the answer?

[olavisjo]

.

Evidence of a or thousands of gods?

You see evidence is evidence.

Cavemen didn't understand the world around them and had no idea of the universe but they could see and think and imagine, so they came up with a reason for all the things they didn't understand and they called that reason gods.
Why is that so hard to understand?

It is a simple question, what evidence would you expect to see?

It is a simple question that I gave a simple answer to and then elaborated on for clarity.

Did you not understand the answer?

No, I do not understand.

Evidence of a or thousands of gods?

This is not a simple answer, it is a question.

What evidence would you expect to see?

You see evidence is evidence.

This is not an answer to the question, it is a non sequitur.

What evidence would you expect to see?

Cavemen didn't understand the world around them and had no idea of the universe but they could see and think and imagine, so they came up with a reason for all the things they didn't understand and they called that reason gods.

Again, this is not an answer to the question, it is a non sequitur.
Your answer would have been valid if the question had been something like...

• Where did belief in God originate?

So, are you going to answer the question?

What evidence would you expect to see?

[Goat]

re Goat Post2702--We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.


. We may have stumbled on to a more considered middle ground, in the above quote. The highly likely presence of abiogenesis in the scientific universe as muted by both Goat and by Danmark earlier. All god speculation by religious people has found a perfect counterweight here.

The middle ground is metaphysics.
of or relating to things that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen

Two examples of metaphysical events ... God and abiogenesis in the outer universe.

There is a big difference. It's not a middle ground at all. It is ongoing research that can be duplicated to show that there is indeed a naturalistic path. Is it 'proof'. no.. it is not. However, it is testable, repeatable, and can be examined.

What do you have that is equivalent for God?

[Clownboat]

.

Evidence of a or thousands of gods?

You see evidence is evidence.

Cavemen didn't understand the world around them and had no idea of the universe but they could see and think and imagine, so they came up with a reason for all the things they didn't understand and they called that reason gods.
Why is that so hard to understand?

It is a simple question, what evidence would you expect to see?

- I would expect prayer to work if the god is claimed to be personal.
- If the claimed god is Zeus for example, I would expect our understanding of lightning to change.
- If the god is claimed to have intelligently designed life on earth, I would expect to see intelligently designed life.
- If the god is suppose to be all powerful, wise, and loving, I would expect him to reject human sacrifice,genocide and to treat women as equals and not property.
- Evidence for the supernatural would also be likely for many god claims.

To be honest, it is hard to answer what kind of evidence we should expect when there are literally thousands of god concepts out there and each would have different expected evidences.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Goat Post2727-- re Goat Post2702--We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.


We may have stumbled on to a more considered middle ground, in the above quote. The highly likely presence of abiogenesis in the scientific universe as muted by both Goat and by Danmark earlier. All god speculation by religious people has found a perfect counterweight here. The middle ground is metaphysics which is of or relating to things that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen
Two examples of metaphysical events ... God and abiogenesis in the outer universe.

Goat--There is a big difference. It's not a middle ground at all. It is ongoing research that can be duplicated to show that there is indeed a naturalistic path. Is it 'proof'. no.. it is not. However, it is testable, repeatable, and can be examined.

What do you have that is equivalent for God?


There is a lot here Goat. You have an estimation, ie highly likely of the occurrence of abiogenesis in outer space being made by both yourself and Danmark based on scientific hypothesis that you state is still not out of the hypothesis state. To emphasise the futuristic nature of your belief here you use the following phrases to describe them. ..a naturalistic path and on going research. If you allow people with religious beliefs this same amount of debate space they will also articulate their metaphysical beliefs. At least you reply and I respect you for that.

[Goat]

re Goat Post2727-- re Goat Post2702--We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.


We may have stumbled on to a more considered middle ground, in the above quote. The highly likely presence of abiogenesis in the scientific universe as muted by both Goat and by Danmark earlier. All god speculation by religious people has found a perfect counterweight here. The middle ground is metaphysics which is of or relating to things that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen
Two examples of metaphysical events ... God and abiogenesis in the outer universe.

Goat--There is a big difference. It's not a middle ground at all. It is ongoing research that can be duplicated to show that there is indeed a naturalistic path. Is it 'proof'. no.. it is not. However, it is testable, repeatable, and can be examined.

What do you have that is equivalent for God?


There is a lot here Goat. You have an estimation, ie highly likely of the occurrence of abiogenesis in outer space being made by both yourself and Danmark based on scientific hypothesis that you state is still not out of the hypothesis state. To emphasise the futuristic nature of your belief here you use the following phrases to describe them. ..a naturalistic path and on going research. If you allow people with religious beliefs this same amount of debate space they will also articulate their metaphysical beliefs. At least you reply and I respect you for that.

Except, I noticed, well,, you not only didn't have the equivalent, but one huge difference between the research into abiogenesis, and the faith in God is that , well, there is a methodology that can be followed to find out about the chemistry involved in early life, and how it formed.. while there is not way to even theoretically find out about the possibility or not of any deity. Yes, there is on going investigation, because everything is not known, but a pathway to increase the knowledge is there.

What pathway is there to demonstrate the possibility of any deity that you can show me? Or, it is delegated to the realm of personal belief, testimony , and speculation?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Goat Post--What pathway is there to demonstrate the possibility of any deity that you can show me? Or, it is delegated to the realm of personal belief, testimony , and speculation


Thank You for your response. You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe. You cannot use the techniques of scientific inquiry to discover a god. There is common ground here and you rightly mention speculation as one of them. These two metaphysical pursuits have often shared their appetite for knowledge in the past and they might do this again. To repeatedly seek difference and to reject the shared speculative nature of both is to deny that past and to look for a polarity of separation that ultimately does not exist. That is what is being attempted constantly on this thread.

[Goat]

re Goat Post--What pathway is there to demonstrate the possibility of any deity that you can show me? Or, it is delegated to the realm of personal belief, testimony , and speculation


Thank You for your response. You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe. You cannot use the techniques of scientific inquiry to discover a god. There is common ground here and you rightly mention speculation as one of them. These two metaphysical pursuits have often shared their appetite for knowledge in the past and they might do this again. To repeatedly seek difference and to reject the shared speculative nature of both is to deny that past and to look for a polarity of separation that ultimately does not exist. That is what is being attempted constantly on this thread.

Yet, what you aren't showing is any reason to think there is a God at all that isn't the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'. I find that the so called 'metaphysical pursuits' are fluff and nonsense, filled with wishful thinking. Without any real word data, how can it be other than an exercise in emotional wish full fulfillment?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Goat Post2732-- I find that the so called 'metaphysical pursuits' are fluff and nonsense, filled with wishful thinking. Without any real word data, how can it be other than an exercise in emotional wish full fulfillment?

The mirror image of this exact point was made by Sir Hamilton in the following manner.

re Sir Hamilton Post2590--I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. Humans can not be completely objective when they study data, their preconceived beliefs and views will "leak" into their conclusions.