Logically consistent theories of ID exist. (page 13)

ackack

So, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?

ackack

So, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?

ackack

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

I am also saying that their belief in God is not without evidenciary support.

Big deal. "Evidentiary support" to you can only mean that someone has stated that they believe something.

Do you have proof of these? Or do you simply have evidence you have personally deemed invalid. If you have proof of these, you believe them true. I doubt you believe them true, given the context you raised the point in.

Ah, I didn't quite understand your new definition. OK then, other people have proof, and who are you to doubt or question them?

AuldSoul

FunkyDerek: who are you to doubt or question them?

Exactly. And who are you? Who is "science"?

Now if by questioning, you mean acquiring their testimony and their collection of what they consider evidence in order to determine if these evidences are subjectively valid in your estimation, why not question them? No harm in asking.

However, nothing compels them to divulge any proofs to you, because they don't have to make a believer out of you. In fact, they may not give two sh*ts whether you believe them. For instance...observe my next post.

AuldSoul

ackack: So, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?

Personal experience, along with a large body of reports of similar accounts, which I have already gathered would be deemed invalid by you, FunkyDerek, Abaddon, and quite a few other posters, and which I think would have little influence on the opinions or beliefs of very many posters here.

So, I'll keep these experiences to myself.

However, that is completely beside the point of why the possibility of evidence for God must be allowed if the possibility of the existence of God is allowed.

See how that works, FunkyDerek? I don't have to prove the existence of God to a single person. I don't think that is something a believer is required to do, anyway. Reality exists, whether or not it is ever seen for what it is.

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

Please help me out here. What is the difference between these two statements, if there is any difference:
(1) Because I have no evidence for a Creator.
(2) Because there is no evidence for a Creator.
I see a distinct difference. It jumps right out at me. These two statements are not equivalent in any sense, to me. Are they equivalent to you?

Of course they're different, and being very pedantic nobody should ever make a statement like (2). It's a categorical statement of non-existence of something which could not have been exhaustively tested for. But people can be sloppy in their speech. The best we can really say is something like: "I am not aware of any evidence for a Creator" (although with your definition of evidence, it's hard to say even that, so replace "evidence" with whatever word would mean what proof, evidence, verification, substantiation etc. mean to most of us). Those who disagree can then provide what they believe to be evidence and we can have a debate.

ackack

AuldSoul, I don't consider them invalid. I don't think you have to be crazy to believe in God, UFOs, homeopathy etc. Believing something because of personal experience as well as other's personal experiences is quite normal. Even people who have profound personal experiences (in this case UFO abduction trauma) respond physiologically the same as people who underwent more concrete trauma.

The experience can be real to you in every sense that counts. Who am I to validate or invalidate that experience. You don't want to share your experience, thats just fine.

These experiences though cannot be used to furnish proof in any objective sense, but like I said earlier, belief in God requires faith, and I think thats just fine.

ackack

AuldSoul

How about being objective? (or at least pretending to be , instead of being pedantic)

Objectively, the second statement excludes the possibility of evidence for God.

Objectively, the first statement allows the possibility of evidence for God.

I didn't come into this thread to start the argument that ensued. My initial post only demanded that Abaddon correct this statement to one that allowed the possibility of evidence for God. He has refused to admit any error regarding it. And he is wrong, flatly wrong.

In addition to being a logically erroneous statement, the statement was obstructive to debate and fallacious in its presentation. It isn't pedantry to point out fallacy in argument during a debate, is it, FunkyDerek?

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

However, that is completely beside the point of why the possibility of evidence for God must be allowed if the possibility of the existence of God is allowed.

It sounds like you're slipping back to a more reasonable definition of the word evidence. Of course it's possible that evidence exists for something, but without it actually being presented, it's nothing but a hypothetical. Until I have evidence that such evidence exists, I am quite happy to assume it doesn't.

See how that works, FunkyDerek? I don't have to prove the existence of God to a single person.

No problem. Just don't pretend to have proof.

I don't think that is something a believer is required to do, anyway.

No, all a believer is required to do is believe. Some people are very good at it.

Reality exists, whether or not it is ever seen for what it is.

Agreed, but we can only work with what evidence we have. If something exists for which no evidence ever appears, nobody will ever know about it.

ackack

AuldSoul, you're missing the point. There can be no "objective" evidence for or against the existence of God. You seem be thinking I'm against (or others) the existence of God. I would deride anyone who offered "proof" for the non-existence of God.

Personal testimonials, for obvious reasons, cannot be considered proof for anything. Personal experiences at best just give us something to think about.

ackack

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

Share this