What evidence do you have to offer?

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

.

There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

ANY evidence more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture. What do you (generic term) have to offer?

Question for debate: What evidence of "gods" can be offered that is more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

For "gods" plural? None. Just myths. For a singular God? Creation...existence. (notice I DID NOT say "the Bible".) That is evidence, to believers anyway. It is not proof. The existence of God has not been proven, one way or another.

But why is there anything,as opposed to nothing? A First Cause, I believe is God.

Not proof, but evidence. Skeptics may not think it is GOOD evidence, but it is evidence.

Could there be other explanations? Sure...but the Theistic/Deistic hypothesis works for me, and for believers.

Beyond that, I cannot say. I cannot PROVE God. I just take God's existence as a given.

Now whether or not a man named Jesus IS God, or the Bible is inerrantly true? Or orignal sin is true? I see no good evidence for any of those claims.

[instantc]

.
From another thread:

.

There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

ANY evidence more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture. What do you (generic term) have to offer?

Question for debate: What evidence of "gods" can be offered that is more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture?

Either you are pusposefully shifting the burden here, or then you misunderstood the conversation quoted above. The other user claimed that if God existed, there would be evidence. I asked him to justify that claim, which he didn't so far.

[Divine Insight]

Question for debate: What evidence of "gods" can be offered that is more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture?

This always comes down to the meaning of the word "god"?

In mysticism the term "god" dose not mean an egotistical entity that is separate from us. It is a more abstract concept than this that refers to the core essence of our own being. In mysticism "Tat t'vam asi", meaning "You are that". You are that which you call "god".

Evidence for this "god"?

Your own subjective experience. Of perhaps better stateed as the simple fact that you are having an experience at all.

How is this "evidence" for this kind of "god"?

Well, it's actually evidence against a purely materialistic reality. If materialism was all that existed then there would be no reason that this material could ever have an experience, no matter how complex it became. It could evolve into non-sentient biological robots, or even robots that were capable of "logically recognizing" that they exist. But logical recognition is not experience. I can program my compute to recognize itself too, but that doesn't mean that it actually has the experience of this recognition.

My argument is that in order for material to ever have an experience that material must innately have the ability to experience something. And therefore I conclude that it is ultimately the material of reality that is having an experience and that is what I am. And this is also what "god" is.

God is the material that makes up reality, and you are that, "Tat t'vam asi"

There is nothing else.

So in a sense you could say that I am actually a "materialist". I simply recognized that I am this material and that it necessarily must be the material that is having an experience. And so for me, that is "god" and the evidence is clear.

What else could be having an experience?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

For "gods" plural? None. Just myths

oh wait I have evidence for gods

Creation...existence. (notice I DID NOT say "the Bible".) That is evidence, to believers anyway.

I don't think you can claim in the same paragraph that no evidence for polytheism exists yet evidence for monotheism does exist when your evidence is as generic as the universe

[KenRU]

[Replying to instantc]

The other user claimed that if God existed, there would be evidence. I asked him to justify that claim, which he didn't so far.
Seems like a logical expectation to me (to believe that if a god existed there would/should be evidence).

We only know of god through our spiritual texts, and they are rife with miracles and divine interventions. If these scriptures are to be believed as true, it is reasonable (to me) to expect to see evidence of said divine activity.

Otherwise, the Abrahamic god is no more credible then the Greeks, Romans or countless forgotten others.

[instantc]

[Replying to instantc]

The other user claimed that if God existed, there would be evidence. I asked him to justify that claim, which he didn't so far.
Seems like a logical expectation to me (to believe that if a god existed there would/should be evidence).

We only know of god through our spiritual texts, and they are rife with miracles and divine interventions. If these scriptures are to be believed as true, it is reasonable (to me) to expect to see evidence of said divine activity.

Otherwise, the Abrahamic god is no more credible then the Greeks, Romans or countless forgotten others.

You are saying that you'd expect to have evidence before you believe in God. In other words, it is reasonable to demand evidence before believing. He was saying something completely different, namely he made the factual claim that if God existed, he would in fact leave behind evidence.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by DanieltheDragon]

The distinction is that I think the evidence for supporting the idea of ONE GOD exists outside of myth, outside of the Bible too.

I am not adept at attempting to PROVE the existence of God, but do find the evidence of one God more compelling then the existence of multiple gods, which have ONLY myths.

Monotheists have reasoning from philosphers such as Desists like Thomas Paine, and even the ancient Greeks. Polytheists have ONLY their myths.

If you can make a reasoned argument for the existence of multiple gods, go for it.

But I think what you are trying to do is make the belief in One God seem as absurd as the belief in multiple mythological Gods, and also other supernatural entities such as pixies, leprachauns, and unicorns.

One does not have to believe in myth to believe in a more Deistic conception of One God. One almost certainly has to believe in myths to believe in multiple gods.

[Divine Insight]

One does not have to believe in myth to believe in a more Deistic conception of One God.

I don't see where Deism requires the notion of a single God. On the contrary, it doesn't even bother to try to define what God is other than a potential creator of our physical world. There is nothing in Deism that suggests that this couldn't have been done by a whole crew of Gods working together to create our reality.

All Deism requires is that if these Gods exist they don't actively intervene.

I think Deism even requires that God is anthropomorphic. Must less that it would need to have what we consider to be a "Single ego or personality".

I think Deism allows that "god" (whatever that might be) could be so radically different from us that we couldn't even identify with its nature. To even say that it is "ONE" is meaningless. One what?

Maybe God doesn't even think in terms of ego or individuality like we do?

[KenRU]

[Replying to instantc]

You are saying that you'd expect to have evidence before you believe in God. In other words, it is reasonable to demand evidence before believing. He was saying something completely different, namely he made the factual claim that if God existed, he would in fact leave behind evidence.
I'm saying both. Evidence is necessary, of course, to believe any fantastical claim. But, if the Abrahamic god really did exist, there would/should be evidence.

The holy books (and teachings) in essence certainly imply there should be.