Theists, present your best, most compelling evidence for God

This is more a word playing.
You don't know of empirical evidence of God and don't consider this evidence can exist. So even if you come across such an evidence you will not be able to believe in God. It means however that you cannot deny God at the point you are. There is either a step to the atheism which you should make clear for yourself. If you start to believe in God more than to the sufficiency of the evidence - then you are the believer. and then a mere Sunrise will be a 100% evidence of God's existence and all-mercyfulness. But if you don't believe in God rather than any evidence it makes you non-believer and even a burning bush with a voice of it witnessing that God is reall will never make You believe. There is a distinction line where you cannot be an agnoxtics.
Speaking of favourite example the point of agnosticism is too small too stay on it. The people on this truely stable and logical point will have to fall down from it to one of the sides.

 

If you have objective empirical evidence for God, then by all means put it forward.

If your evidence is "well if you were a believer then you would believe this is evidence", then you already fail.

If you want to use claims from the Bible, like the burning bush, as evidence of God, then you need an external source to verify those claims. The Bible cannot be used as evidence for itself.

Also, anything that Occam's Razor can take apart (IE, something that works in nature without god, but you want to shoehorn a god into it) doesn't count as evidence of a god. So sorry, sunrises are not evidence.

 

Hmmm...

The New Testament lord is Truth, the son of the almighty eternally unfolding Reality that traps men and yet nutures all life.

Truth is lord for men who must know the truth in order to be set free of the dangers of this almighty, and utilize the benefits of understanding the spirit of the Natural Laws.

These ideas seem de facto, but there is evidence for truth in the Scientific Method.

 

Yes, with that response we can make sure there is never a causation connected to our observations of correlations.

But what intellectually honest people do when the correlation seems reasonably related to the causes of violent crime is that they investigate further, rather than use that tired old adage to dismiss the whole issue and wallow in ignorance thereafter.

What one intellectually person might look at is the killers in the murders taking place in America and see just who it is that uses guns to kill people, while the dishonest intellectuals will preach that guns are bad.

 

Hmmm....

Check your figures.

The total Welfare costs for 2011 was $1 Trillion dollars.
That was higher than the military budget.

The estimated Budget deficeit for Welfare is $10.5 Trillion over the next decade, compared to the similar cries about the paltry $1.7 Trillion short fall expected for Obamacare.
But add in the $400/month Soc Sec Disability that Welfare mothers get when their child is tested as Special Ed, and the cost to the Criminal Justice System, adding in the free Medicare coverage too, and the enormity of the problem comes into focus:


Welfare $1 trillion in 2011
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...1-trillion-in-2011-study-shows/#ixzz2DfVu5Ujc

 

That's inclusive of state welfare; you're comparing apples and oranges. Federal welfare spending is waaaay lower than spending on the military. Unless you're going to go and dig up similar figures on state spending on the military-industrial complex (cost of tax-breaks to companies like Winthrop-Grumman, state spending on state militias, etc.), you're using a lie-by-omission. And since you're the one arguing that welfare is exceeding the costs of all else, the onus is on you to prove it. So, dig through all the state budgets and prove to me that what you're saying it true rather than using an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Also, since welfare works to reduce poverty ( http://www.zompist.com/welfare.html ), arguing to reduce it in order to reduce crime is completely backwards.

 

@Questerr
I don't have any extra proof that noone else had so far. Just my feelings and regular proofs. At the moment there is a talk in a neighbouring topic (put your tough questions) about moral proof. Think we have enough time to cover other three but not at once of course. Besides you heard all of them.

In very very rough terms Occam's razor shoves off itself the first thing. and actually there is no absolutely 100% empirical and scientifical bullet-proof evidence of anything including God. So there is only a sense to be at the point of agnostics. But you will have to make this choice sooner or later. One cannot live and not to have any sins or vitues. So to move this someone off the agnostic point of view I usually suggest "Pascal's wager". It has more sense for the usage rather razor. Especially once you make a decision.

 

Pascal's Wager is idiotic. What makes the Christian God anymore legitmate to worship under Pascal's Wager than Thor?

I know this has already been explained to you, but atheism/agnosticism has nothing to do with morality or moral issues. Sins and virtues have (*)(*)(*)(*) all to do with beliefs and knowledge and only deal with actions.

Completely independent of me being Agnostic Atheist, I am also a Secular Humanist and get my morality from that.

 

Your tradition. If you look on your father belief or your grandfather (in the very worst case your great great great grandfather who shouldn't live earlier than 19th century) And btw Thor wouldn't do anything to a christian. Anything bad I mean. For Iggdrassil is interested in a limited number of... professions. In order to come to Valhalla you must die on the battlefield... in the best case naked. Do you still wanna go there?

I also told it several times that any action needs to be compared to a behaviour pattern which is supposed to be moral under a given tradition. Atheists don't have any rules so any action can be at the same time moral or immoral as they like at a given moment of time. So judging their traditional behaviour the only thing an atheist should do as an atheist is to mock at Jesus Christ and as a reward this mocking bird would die completely when time comes turning into mud.

Good source! For it is a christian source in its morality system.

 

44 pages of Blah blah blah, yack yack yack and absolutley no proof that a god or gods exist.

Talk or printed words, do not prove there is a god.... have your "real" skyguy drive up to my house and do a few tricks and then I MIGHT believe.....


I am neither atheist(though I call myself that to simplify some things) nor agnostic ...I'm a

"who cares, there's no proof and it doesn't make any difference anyway" -ist

 

Good point! It also means that there is no point in posting any of these messages. For noonecar-ism is truely international and all-confessional. But a lil bit dull IMHO.

 

Actually he is right. For example, ancient Sumerians got married - in fact, that's where the very idea of a "best man" came from.

Marriage predates Christianity, it's a simple fact, learn to cope with reality.

They can't. However, to be an atheist you don't necessarily have to DENY god exists. You simply don't have to agree that he DOES exist.

You mean, like, for instance, saying something along the lines of "you need to prove not only that the two statistics are increasing at the same time, but that they are DIRECTLY linked, and no third variable is involved"? Yeah, I agree totally. Feel free to go ahead and investigate further, and if your investigations show what I asked, then that's awesome. Do bear in mind that I haven't said I disagree with the idea that they're causally linked.

Truth is not dependant on what your traditions happen to be. And Thor is only one example. There are well over a thousand gods already named throughout history - but perhaps if there is a god he isnt one we've thought of. There are unlimited gods that could be conceived - and therefore, unlimited numbers of gods that WOULD cause suffering in the afterlife to those who professed Christianity during life. And assuming each god is equally probable, (which is the only sensible thing to do since there is no way to quantify such probabilities) unlimited odds against a believer just happening to believe in the right god.

 

No you're WRONG!!!!!!!!!! WROOOOONG!!!

God gave marriage to True Christians, and this demonstrates a split between animals and MAN. Man is closer to God, and farther away from animal nature. Animals do not get married in nature. Marriage, as derived from TRUE CHRISTIANS, is proof of GOD. And the homosexual perverts, urged on by their Zionist backers, who want to desecrate marriage, will never succeed.

 

He is wrong. For people lived together for a long period of time but modern marriage is christian in its essence. For you know probably that christian tradition absorbed a lot of pagan traditions but gave them a completely different meaning. For thousands years there was a sacred f\/ck on every wedding and its place was just substituted with a symbolical exhange with rings. And since Christ we during wedding make one person out of two. That's what makes a family and its meaning. A family is regarded as one being. But you sound as if you should know of it but keep silent for some reason.

It is exactly what you need to do if you are an agnostic. But A-theist must deny God. Otherwise he is no atheist. Atheist needs to refuse of God. He needs to lose the fear of God and be proud of it and that is what atheist is. Agnostic is a hesitating person who doesn't have enough motivation to be a believer and who has a feeling in his soul that stops him of denying souls, God and everything sacred. It's a weak position, but that's what it is. There is no acceptance or denial with agnostics.

Truth is always unknown. There is no man in the universe who knows the absolute truth.

I answerd what happens in this example. Bring more of what is your problem and I try to answer more.

There is a theory that the Earth is a flat disc which stays on three elephants and a turtle, there is a theiry that the Earth is round as a ball and finally there is a theory which tells that Earth is more like a tangerine because of it's revolutions. One of these theories is true for it succeeds uses the knowledge and explains other theories. However there are modern conspiracy theories which also exist and can be trusted, e.g. that everything you see is 'matrix' or all the science is a PR from 'anunaki' (aliens). So it not necessarily means that the latest system is always right, but there is absolutely no logics in considering that the Earth is simultaneously a disc, a ball a tangerine and a mistification.
However choice is yours and you need to do it, because the refusal of choice is also a choice.

 

This is false. Do I need to explain to you why atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive and why your definition of atheism is wrong again?

Agnosticism is a strong position. It is position that can only be swayed by empirical evidence.

Theism is a week position. It is belief without evidence. Effectively an arbitrary house of cards that will fall apart the second a logical fallacy creeps its way into a believers head, unless he goes the route of insane rationalization like cupid dave.

 

You are so wrong in this that its laughable.

FACT - Early christians saw marriage as a defect and exalted celibacy as the nearest way to approach the divine perfection, in fact early christians thought it would have been better if Adam had never had a companion at all, they saw the breaking of virginity as a sin against god as you are changing the way he made you.
The bible makes it crystal clear that chastity, not marriage, should be the primary focus of god-fearing christians In 1 Corinthians, Paul says being too involved in marriage can actually detract from proper worship of God: "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs…. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife--and his interests are divided" (7:32-4). Earlier in Corinthians, Paul says plainly: "It is good for a man not to marry" (7:1). It seems strange that those who have committed the sin of marriage should then cast stones.

If you believe in the old testament then you would be correct in saying marriage was a gift from god to the human race, the first marriage being that of Adam and Eve :-

However there are so many inconsistances in the bible that this must be taken with a pinch of salt. The institution of marriage has changed a great deal throughout the history of Christianity and by realist thinking pre-dates it.

 

The inconsistencies are found in the poor reading comprehension that ends with what seems contradictory because of the initial assumptions made by the reader.

People cast over their own paradigms about what the bible reports and end with those paradoxes which always suggest the intial premises where wrong.

The Christians valued prudence.

They promote virginity before marriage therefore.
They outlawed Divorce, as evidenced bythe rule of the RCC when it came into being in 380AD.
They opposed adultery and polygamy.

These were sexually prudent attitudes that were non-existent in 32AD, hence THAT kind of concept of marriage was held in low esteem and not recommended.

In 32AD, the Jewish people were locked into to culture that was much like America today.
Christians realized that marriage was a social force used by the feminist woman's network to exploit the relationship between men and women.
Contrasted to the partiarchs of former times, similar to the muslim attitudes of today, the Jews of 32AD were being told to stay out of the Institution of Marriage as it had become quite as different then as it is now for us.


Christianity is opposed to sexual promiscuity, and a wise christian even today can understand the marriage is not a christian sacrament the way it is practiced now or then.


1Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit (of Truth: [John 14:17 ]) speaketh expressly, that in the (Renaissance of the) latter times, (after the end of the thousand year reign of Universal Christianity) some (men and women) shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits (demanding sexual license), and (the liberalization of marriage vows to include no-fault divorce, gay marriages, adolescent sexual freedom, multiple sex partners, open marriages, the ridiculing of virginity, condoning multiple pre-marital sex partners, inclusion of open marriages, and such), doctrines (who are beneficiaries of such behaviors, i.e.; lawyers, Feminists traders in sexual favors, wives' second time around, non-support welfare fathers, irresponsible adolescents, politicians serving these constituients, etc...);

1Tim. 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy (of even their own statistical facts and sociological studies), having their conscience seared (shut) with a hot iron (of self interest in feminism);

1Tim. 4:3 Forbidding (young people) to marry (until an average age of 26 years today), and commanding (the folly of abstinence, in order) to abstain from meats (of their God-given hormonal drives) which God hath created (in us) to be received (an exercised close to the days of puberty) with thanksgiving (for the nature intended) of them which believe (God granted satisfaction of the sexual drives he, himself, created to come forth hormonally at puberty) and know the truth, (that society manipulates the youth in order to channel their behavior onto paths useful for the society of this man-made world).

 

Order, universal laws, creation, good vs. evil. And most of all, truth.

 

Sorry, marriage DOES predate Christianity. The code of Hammurabi, almost 2000 years before Christ was born, talks about marriage.

Deal.

With.

It.

 

Do you realise how self contradictory you are being? You're saying that the 'essence' of marriage is christian, and then, in the same paragraph, go on to explain ways in which that essence was around in marriage ceremonies before Christians adopted them.

If you think that to be an atheist you MUST claim that god definitely does not exist, then you simply have a different definition of what it is to be atheist than, well, a lot of actual atheists. That makes discussion with you on the subject... difficult, to put it politely.

With the small proviso that anyone who has never even heard of the concept of god does not need to choose, I suppose you're right. But whether your choice of god (or lack thereof) will result in your eternal torture should not be a factor for the reason that the odds on you picking exactly the right god out of all possible gods is completely negligible.

 

And the flying spaghetti monster gave us nose-picking. Oh, sure, people before the Church of the FSM picked their noses, and the term existed before the Church of the FSM to describe exactly that, but it wasn't the same because the FSM (BBHNA) imbued it upon his followers.

Define each of these terms. You just threw out six of the most convoluted, unclear, and semantically difficult terms you possibly could have for this discussion; I have no idea how you define "order" in this context, for example.

Then, once you've done that, then make an argument that isn't one gigantic non-sequitur. This should be fun.

 

There's stuff we don't understand, so, uh, er, ergo their MUST be a god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Or it simply could be God. Correct?

 

You know this thread is over a year old, right?

 

What so, Morality didn't exist before idea of god was conceived by man? Prove it.