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?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Sir Hamilton Post2749---I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

When we all shout, nobody hears. Many good points have been made in the last 24 hours of this thread but have they really been addressed. The above post is an example of this. It relates to an interchange between Star and Sir Hamilton. I have been asked three questions directly to which I want to reply. Please do not say that the thread is going too fast for me. It is going too fast period. Far Wanderer, the most obvious inquiry technique of religious people is prayer.

[zeromeansnothing]

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence. There is nothing between the two sides that does not point towards co-operation rather than confrontation. There is a lot of posturing about. Please consider the similarities between these two positions.

re dianaiad Post 2744--but how can we, mortals and temporary dwellers upon this planet that we are, possibly know and understand God in His entirety? We may, eventually...in fact, I think we will, but not here and not now. All any of us can do here and now is the best we can.

re Danmark 2689--Homo sapiens has been here on Earth for possibly as long as 200,000 years. We have recorded history for less than 10,000. In all that time, we don't have any confirmed reports of a visit from an alien civilization. Given the number of 'goldilocks planets' in the Milky Way, one could argue that the fact we have no clear contact from an alien species in all that time might suggest there are no aliens, or that the distances involved are so great that communication and travel are problematic. It's simply an area of thought genial to speculation rather than dogmatic claims of certainty.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to zeromeansnothing]

I don't see how one cannot "discover an inhabited universe" with prayer, assuming prayer works.

[olavisjo]

.

- I would expect prayer to work if the god is claimed to be personal.

Then we can rule out the 'ATM in the sky' model of God.

- If the claimed god is Zeus for example, I would expect our understanding of lightning to change.

How would our understanding of lightning change? Now we believe that human consciousness is in a small lightning bolt (about 1/3 of a standard refrigerator bulb) so why would Zeus not be in a bolt with a peak power of over a terawatt.

- If the god is claimed to have intelligently designed life on earth, I would expect to see intelligently designed life.

Since the time that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in 1958, the only tenable theory of evolution is Intelligent Design.

- 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.

Are you now required to perform human sacrifices, genocides and to treat women as inferiors?

- Evidence for the supernatural would also be likely for many god claims.

We do have evidence for the supernatural such as morality, human consciousness, quantum uncertainty, entanglement, the universe.

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.

We are only interested in the one that does exist. And it would appear that there is no evidence that we would expect to see if God did exist, that we do not see.

[zeromeansnothing]

re My Post2731--You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe.
-- , the most obvious inquiry technique of religious people is prayer.

re Far Wanderer Post--I don't see how one cannot "discover an inhabited universe" with prayer, assuming prayer works.

If you tried to open a can of beans with a pen, would failure to do so indicate that the pen was in some way defective. Are you making a real point here. It looks trivial and distracting but perhaps I do not understand your enquiry properly.

[dianaiad]

That's an excellent argument. The only problem with it is that 'god' or 'the gods' has been defined and described in a thousand different ways by different cultures and religions.

Of course. What we need to look at, though, aren't all the differences, but rather the things they all have in common--and they do have some things in common, most religions do.

To the extent that man agrees that god is indefinable or 'beyond definition' your point is valid.

By that, I think you mean that my point agrees with your opinion.....

To the extent that 'god' is more specifically defined and has supposedly sent us specific scripture such as the Book of Mormon et al., the Bible or the Quran, the point is hopelessly invalid.

... And more importantly . . .

UW 31 - BYU 16

Yep, sad, that....but for many different reasons, I support USU, not BYU, and....

USU 21-NI 14 (in the Poinsettia Bowl)

(though BYU trounced 'em, 31-14, in October. Ick)

[Danmark]

That's an excellent argument. The only problem with it is that 'god' or 'the gods' has been defined and described in a thousand different ways by different cultures and religions.

Of course. What we need to look at, though, aren't all the differences, but rather the things they all have in common--and they do have some things in common, most religions do.

To the extent that man agrees that god is indefinable or 'beyond definition' your point is valid.

By that, I think you mean that my point agrees with your opinion.....

To the extent that 'god' is more specifically defined and has supposedly sent us specific scripture such as the Book of Mormon et al., the Bible or the Quran, the point is hopelessly invalid.

... And more importantly . . .

UW 31 - BYU 16

Yep, sad, that....but for many different reasons, I support USU, not BYU, and....

USU 21-NI 14 (in the Poinsettia Bowl)

(though BYU trounced 'em, 31-14, in October. Ick)

I was surprised NIU was so ineffective on offense. GReat D by Utah State, tho' Wasn't much of a game, but better than the MN - Syracuse game. Will be rooting against Notre Dame this morning. Will be frustrated as usual . . . now
Back to the point:

I don't have a problem with an undefinable God, but it seems the only ones who believe in one are a few theologians. Man in general is like a kid with a new football. Instead of just playing with it, he has to write his name on it, uglifying it in the process . Whether or not there is some kind of god I do not know, but the various attempts to define him and write long books about him and how he has guided 'his people' seem wrong and misguided to me, and the more details and rules and regulations and rituals that are attributed to god, the uglier and less godlike the whole shebang becomes.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to zeromeansnothing]

I'm asking why the information that can be gained through prayer is limited at all (as in what makes it the wrong tool understanding facts about the universe). I mean, what information does prayer make available about reality? That God exists? Anything else?

[Danmark]

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence.

There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Far Wanderer Post2761--I mean, what information does prayer make available about reality? That God exists? Anything else?

This is just another add on to an already crowed debate space. If I give you one, as I did with prayer will you ask me about that too. The above is a thread in itself for another day. Prayer helps you understand about yourself.