What counts as evidence for God?

[Pachinkosam]

Which is what I do, as an atheist. That said, if Jesus comes down floating on a cloud, slaps me, and calls me an unbeliever, then I'll say "my bad, I was wrong, what took you so long?"

I think that's called the second coming.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Do you think that this is good?

I don't personally.

A person's moral value, if that is a thing, as a person should be the most important thing.

 

[Planet Cool]

But isn't this sort of an admission of defeat for the theist?

No, and I'm surprised the idea has so much traction. That we can't figure it out either way doesn't mean you win by default. By its very nature, the question is beyond our reach, at least at this point in time. Atheists and theists have beliefs that help us cope with that, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. It's best to make peace with it and not let it make us resentful.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, and I'm surprised the idea has so much traction. That we can't figure it out either way doesn't mean you win by default.

Actually, if my position is "there is no justified reason to believe X exists", and someone says "We cannot possibly figure it out either way", then yes, I do actually win by default.

 

[.-.Prδχγ.-.]

personally, i feel man created god, then simply began to abandon the belief as more and more answers were surfacing from science. the only reason religions, weather monotheistic or not, create god(s) in the first place is to solve impeccable questions that we, on our own, cannot answer. the proof that any god(s) do exist are based upon bias beliefs. one believer points to ruins, or a book, whilst the other points to saying how it would be impossible to retell an event that took place hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. as i stated earlier, the belief is fading, but because of a good reason. answers are coming our way, regardless if we want them or not.

 

[Planet Cool]

Actually, if my position is "there is no justified reason to believe X exists", and someone says "We cannot possibly figure it out either way", then yes, I do actually win by default.

No, you don't. Your highly subjective position on a highly nebulous subject doesn't take us any closer to finding an answer than my highly subjective position on a highly nebulous subject. If my position, to strip it of all its bells and whistles, is "There is possibly a higher intelligence, incomprehensible to our animal brains, that is involved in the origins, structure, and workings of the universe," and yours is "There is not possibly such an intelligence," your position is the more close-minded and lacking in perspective. If unchecked, it may approach the zealotry of fundamentalist theists.

I sincerely don't mean to pick a fight here, nor to criticize youf or your preferred means of coping with life, the universe, and everything. I'm only advising you to accept your limitations as a human being and make peace with them. It's what I did, and I'm all the happier for it.

 

[ATL4S]

#AtheistMasterRace

 

[_Keno_]

No, you don't. Your highly subjective position on a highly nebulous subject doesn't take us any closer to finding an answer than my highly subjective position on a highly nebulous subject.

I believe he means to say that since he is taking the skeptic's position, if neither he nor you have a 'great' enough argument, then there is no real reason to believe, and therefore the skeptic wins.

This is a bit of a simplified parallel, but if a man comes to be and says "I believe that the universe is filled with life," and gives reasons, but none convincing, do I even need to put forth an argument to win? Or does the lack of evidence speak for itself? The default state is SKEPTICISM, and it is the burden of the person putting forth a belief/possibility to come up with a convincing or sound argument.

If my position, to strip it of all its bells and whistles, is "There is possibly a higher intelligence, incomprehensible to our animal brains, that is involved in the origins, structure, and workings of the universe," and yours is "There is not possibly such an intelligence," your position is the more close-minded and lacking in perspective. If unchecked, it may approach the zealotry of fundamentalist theists.

No, his position isn't "there is not possibly such an intelligence," it is "There is not enough evidence to rationally believe that there is such an intelligence."

incomprehensible to our animal brains

By the way, I really hate when people use this phrase or "beyond our understanding."

What does that really even mean? If God himself came down and tried to explain it to us, we wouldn't be able to comprehend it? Why not just create humans smart enough to be able to understand? It seems to me like this is just a big excuse for the lack of what you call "origin, structure, and workings of the universe." Religious people throw these phrases out whenever something seems to contradict the morality of God in the world, such as good people, children, or even priests getting cancer or hit by cars.

I sincerely don't mean to pick a fight here, nor to criticize youf or your preferred means of coping with life, the universe, and everything. I'm only advising you to accept your limitations as a human being and make peace with them. It's what I did, and I'm all the happier for it.

I've actually done the same thing, except to probably a lesser degree. I understand that people get unlucky, and bad things happen to people purely through probability. There is no reason to believe in karma, or that 'bad guys always lose in the end' or that 'good deeds always come around.' Like I said, even little kids are probably getting killed, tortured, or molested somewhere in the world right now. This is always part of that "unseen plan that we couldn't possibly comprehend," of course. Makes it much easier to accept that and make peace though!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, you don't. Your highly subjective position on a highly nebulous subject doesn't take us any closer to finding an answer than my highly subjective position on a highly nebulous subject. If my position, to strip it of all its bells and whistles, is "There is possibly a higher intelligence, incomprehensible to our animal brains, that is involved in the origins, structure, and workings of the universe," and yours is "There is not possibly such an intelligence," your position is the more close-minded and lacking in perspective. If unchecked, it may approach the zealotry of fundamentalist theists.

But that's not what I said, or what the other person said.

My claim was that it was impossible to justify belief in the existence of this particular god concept.
What Warlock*G said is that there was no evidence either way.

I fully accept that there are various god concepts which are possible. But given that we have no access to them, and that they exist in a realm outside our reality, any attempt to argue for them is necessarily an attempt to argue for something we cannot possibly know. As a result, the skeptical position is entirely justified, and no other is.

 

[Planet Cool]

I believe he means to say that since he is taking the skeptic's position, if neither he nor you have a 'great' enough argument, then there is no real reason to believe, and therefore the skeptic wins.

This is a bit of a simplified parallel, but if a man comes to be and says "I believe that the universe is filled with life," and gives reasons, but none convincing, do I even need to put forth an argument to win? Or does the lack of evidence speak for itself? The default state is SKEPTICISM, and it is the burden of the person putting forth a belief/possibility to come up with a convincing or sound argument.

The question of God isn't like that at all. It's more like trying to figure out if we're all in the Matrix of not. (Funnily enough, I remember Richard Dawkins bringing that up as an example of a truly unanswerable question in The God Delusion. Something about floating brains in vats being fed sensory information by a computer.) We can disprove specific beliefs about God - that he created all species, in their present morphological state, exactly six thousand years ago, for example - but not the notion that God could exist in its entirety.

No, his position isn't "there is not possibly such an intelligence," it is "There is not enough evidence to rationally believe that there is such an intelligence."

That's fair. But "enough" is subjective.

By the way, I really hate when people use this phrase or "beyond our understanding."

What does that really even mean? If God himself came down and tried to explain it to us, we wouldn't be able to comprehend it? Why not just create humans smart enough to be able to understand? It seems to me like this is just a big excuse for the lack of what you call "origin, structure, and workings of the universe."

What I mean is that if God exists, that doesn't necessarily mean that we humans would be able to observe, let alone understand him. The Internet is incomprehensible to ants, and yet here we are using it. I don't think it's impossible (or even improbable) for someone to live in a universe where there's a God, and yet find it perfectly reasonable to assume that there isn't.

And by that "origin, structure, and workings" thing, I mostly meant observable things like the laws of physics.

Religious people throw these phrases out whenever something seems to contradict the morality of God in the world, such as good people, children, or even priests getting cancer or hit by cars.

I've actually done the same thing, except to probably a lesser degree. I understand that people get unlucky, and bad things happen to people purely through probability. There is no reason to believe in karma, or that 'bad guys always lose in the end' or that 'good deeds always come around.' Like I said, even little kids are probably getting killed, tortured, or molested somewhere in the world right now. This is always part of that "unseen plan that we couldn't possibly comprehend," of course. Makes it much easier to accept that and make peace though!

Well, now we're getting really subjective, but I don't believe that literally everything that happens is part of some divine master plan. Certainly not violent crimes like children being molested. That's free will. And if everybody gets the afterlife they deserve, any injustice you suffer in life is only a mild inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If God can share no understanding with his creation, then how can there be any basis for a personal relationship? If the logic being applied to how human life works doesn't fall anywhere in human life, how can we say it is a logic that is for us? That literally means by definition it isn't. Comparing the internet and an ant isn't a good analogy--the internet is for us, not the ants: are we to say the universe is for God and the state of it's inhabitants are as equally irrelevant as an ant is to our internet? Running a world of squares and circles based on square circles--this goes beyond accepting that such thinking can exist, but that it can also fit with a divine caretaker.

Why have this Earth farce that is a deterministic zoo and then punish those who end up doing bad things in a transient existence forever while rewarding those eternally for those who did good for a few decades? Why not just skip that part and go with the world that is perfect. If this "free will" exists in heaven, then heaven will just be a VERY populated Earth with eternity resting on their minds, how can it be safe as well? You could say that the threat of damnation is much more clear so it'll be a deterrent for most. but if God believes that this is fine then why does the universe look pretty void of any such hints now? Maybe there are endless distractions and resources to keep people happy and preoccupied, but even if that made the masses happy then why not have this paradise here so free will goes all chill? If there isn't free will, your soul being stripped from your body or God's presence having a direct impact on who you are, then why was it valued before on Earth and why is it good for it to be gone then?

If child molestation and murder is a "mild inconvenience" (a pretty degenerative (at worst) and counterproductive (at best) mentality for people in society to hold by the way), then doesn't that further solidify its insignificance? Is there any meaning for little Jimmy getting molested and murdered while a rich philanthropist gets a long, comfortable life and goes to the same place? Does little Jimmy get extra benefits for being a victim with a short life even if he did less for the world than the funding and movements of the philanthropist? Would that mean there are different tiers of happiness in heaven, meaning not only is utopia denied before, but it is even held back later?

If there is some certain of use for this phase inbetween nonexistence and where we belong, then what is it? Is there any utility in humans and other animals being capable of evil? Is making that choice really so significant to the individual? What if the choices were degrees of good, or different kinds of good, or even "neutral"? Couldn't our instinct just be innately cooperative? Does suffering somehow make us happier overall? Our lives improve by having people on the other side of the planet dying of starvation or blowing themselves up? Pain can indeed teach us better to handle... more pain, but if there isn't any there to hurt us to begin with, it's an unneeded lesson. Would life be empty if we all just wanted to either relaxed, invent, assist, discover, think, play, etc.? If I woke up tomorrow and everyone was incapable of being a ****head, you're not going to hear me yawn or scream begging for the old world. And this is all forgetting the fact that our body's for some reason require constant maintenance and oh, there's natural disasters which are basically just catastrophes that spice things up. If even in this world things could still be considered "bad", then this evil standard God holds is incredibly relative/subjective so how could we have any hope for justice in this kind of world?

 

[Sucumbio]

You said what I was thinking but in a lot longer way lol. Basically I feel like if the concept of God is wholly {heh} unrelated to us, then yes, it'd be dumb to believe in it/Him/they. But since people "feel" God and relate to him, it stands to reason that he must somehow be connected to the same Universe as ours, even if he can't perceive him directly.

 

[_Keno_]

The question of God isn't like that at all. It's more like trying to figure out if we're all in the Matrix of not. (Funnily enough, I remember Richard Dawkins bringing that up as an example of a truly unanswerable question in The God Delusion. Something about floating brains in vats being fed sensory information by a computer.) We can disprove specific beliefs about God - that he created all species, in their present morphological state, exactly six thousand years ago, for example - but not the notion that God could exist in its entirety.

Like before, the atheist/agnostic position about God is that "there is no reason to believe until ample evidence/reason is supplied." It doesn't matter whether we are talking about the very nature of the world itself, or why my neighbor's water bill is so high (we think he's growing weed). As long as there isn't ample information, the default should be "I don't believe it."

Belief in something should have at least some reasons, and for something as important as the nature of the world itself, the reasons should be pretty solid.

That's fair. But "enough" is subjective.

Of course it is! People believe or disbelieve for different reasons. The same information that would be convincing to one person may not be remotely close enough to convince another! The only way for it to be objective is with concrete proof, which will never exist for such a question until either God himself comes down to Earth or the human race is destroyed.

What I mean is that if God exists, that doesn't necessarily mean that we humans would be able to observe, let alone understand him.

Agreed.

The Internet is incomprehensible to ants, and yet here we are using it. I don't think it's impossible (or even improbable) for someone to live in a universe where there's a God, and yet find it perfectly reasonable to assume that there isn't.

Agreed. It very well may be that he has workings that are not easy to see, but that's an incredibly vague statement that doesn't have any support. Humans have been able to detect and measure some particles that hardly even exist.

And by that "origin, structure, and workings" thing, I mostly meant observable things like the laws of physics.

Ahhh, it helps if I'm not misrepresenting you, eh?

Well, now we're getting really subjective, but I don't believe that literally everything that happens is part of some divine master plan. Certainly not violent crimes like children being molested. That's free will. And if everybody gets the afterlife they deserve, any injustice you suffer in life is only a mild inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

Hmmm, well I hope you don't believe that "all these good things that happen come from prayer, the Glory of God, and His master plan," but at the same time say "evil is from free will, and sometimes the devil."

Everyone seems to praise Jesus if a dying child comes back from near-death, but is it not possible that the doctor just did the job right? That perhaps free will saved this child, not God? How can you ever distinguish between them?

Why believe if you can't distinguish between a cause-effect world and a world run by God?

 

[_Keno_]

double post...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, I take a somewhat stronger position. If your god is defined as outside of nature, then at a fundamental level, not only do you not have enough evidence, but you cannot, even in theory, possibly find enough evidence - any evidence you find will be utterly indistinguishable from any other supernatural cause that exists outside of nature.

 

[pbjezgoud]

So are you saying that nothing should count as evidence for God?

To be honest, this is going to be the case 100% of the time. I'm not sure if you've had one of the conversations before, but his is always how it goes (sarcasm). Aethists are "always right" about their position...always...and those who do believe in God or a God, are considered wrong because it doesn't "science".

Well if a book written 2,000 years ago which contains prophecies (proven by historians and "science") that were written before they happened isn't good enough, nothing will be.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Well if a book written 2,000 years ago which contains prophecies (proven by historians and "science") that were written before they happened isn't good enough, nothing will be.

What prophecies does the Bible contain which are supported by history and/or science? It might be good to list them, for the purpose of posterity and expanding upon your case.

 

[pbjezgoud]

What prophecies does the Bible contain which are supported by history and/or science? It might be good to list them, for the purpose of posterity and expanding upon your case.

The prophecy of Daniel was written 200 years before Alexander the Great became a power and ruled as he did. The prophecy even described him as dieing young as he did. It also foretold what would happen to his 'kingdom' after he died.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The prophecy of Daniel was written 200 years before Alexander the Great became a power and ruled as he did. The prophecy even described him as dieing young as he did. It also foretold what would happen to his 'kingdom' after he died.

Was it, though? The prophecy is very impressive... But it falls prey to the same significant problem many "ancient" prophecies fall: it's impossible to verify when it was written. Not only do we have nothing to truly pin Daniel to that time period, but in fact, there are a lot of very good reasons to think it was not written in 600 BCE, as described in the text itself, but rather was anachronistic, written during the events predicted.

For starters, the most obvious piece of evidence: that it is so accurate in its predictions, and where it makes mistakes. Let me analogize a bit... Say I provide you a letter which I claim I found in my attic. The letter is written by my great-great-grandfather in 1900, and it predicted, among other things, WWI, WWII, the holocaust, the rise of rock & roll, and the exact placements of the 2005 world series. However, it says some things about some events in the late 1800s that are clearly wrong, and for some reason the predictions seem to stop at the point we found the letter. My great-great-grandfather then proceeded to explain that he knew all of this because Allah beamed it into his brain. Would you believe that this was actually written by my great-great-grandfather? I doubt it. I think the sheer fact that its predictions are so eerily on-point, but the things my great-great-grandfather really should have known about were not, would lead you to believe that it's a fake.

So what does this have to do with Daniel? Well, Daniel, writing as a historian in 600 BCE, makes some very significant errors about the contemporary history. Furthermore, his predictions cease in their accuracy later on - he gets the details of antiochus's death wrong, which is kind of weird if he's getting his information from god. Not only that, but there are numerous anachronisms within the text which do a lot to date it long after the point it was written in (for example, referring to Jeremiah as "scripture" when it was not canonized until centuries later). Daniel is also notably missing in the canonization of Jewish prophets (around 200BCE) and the wisdom of Sirach (180BCE). With this information, there is no reasonable claim to the prophetic status of Daniel. In fact, given what he got right and wrong, we can actually pinpoint the authorship very precisely between 167BCE and 164BCE. It's not prophecy; the author is a fraud.

Going back to that letter. How much evidence would you need to believe that my grandfather's letter wasn't a fake, to accept it and kowtow to the god of Islam? Probably a lot, right?

Prophetic claims need to fulfill certain conditions. The prophecy has to be specific, discretely fulfillable, have some sort of time limit, unlikely to occur by chance or guessable, must not have people explicitly working towards it (this is where the prophecy about a nation being born in a day sort of falls apart) and must have clearly and demonstrably been made before the event it prophecizes. Daniel gets most of the way there, but falls flat on the historical side of things. There is no evidence that Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE. There is very good evidence that it was written around the middle of the 2nd century BCE, after the events it correctly "predicted".

To be honest, this is going to be the case 100% of the time. I'm not sure if you've had one of the conversations before, but his is always how it goes (sarcasm). Aethists are "always right" about their position...always...and those who do believe in God or a God, are considered wrong because it doesn't "science".

Well, what do you have to offer? Scientific empiricism is the only consistently reliable mechanism we have for determining what is and is not real. When you propose the existence of a being that cannot be detected by that mechanism, I'm left wondering - how did you ever establish that?

I'm perfectly open to evidence for your god (although I'd ask you first to define your god). However, there needs to actually be something there. And believers do a very poor job of actually demonstrating any phenomenon attributable to god.

 

[Grass]

I'm perfectly open to evidence for your god (although I'd ask you first to define your god). However, there needs to actually be something there. And believers do a very poor job of actually demonstrating any phenomenon attributable to god.

See, the thing is. Some people think that "God" was an alien race or being or whatever. So, it is possible that the so-called all powerful being was really just a scientist from like another galaxy or something. It's somewhat akin to a scientist in a laboratory creating cell cultures. The cells don't realize there's someone looking at them under a microscope and that they were created or whatever. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Sehnsucht]

See, the thing is. Some people think that "God" was an alien race or being or whatever. So, it is possible that the so-called all powerful being was really just a scientist from like another galaxy or something. It's somewhat akin to a scientist in a laboratory creating cell cultures. The cells don't realize there's someone looking at them under a microscope and that they were created or whatever. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

Sure is possible.

But you'd still need to support that hypothesis. What reasons do we have to seriously consider we were the products of Ancient Astronauts? The particulars change, but the question remains the same (re: evidence, burden of proof, warrant for belief, etc.).

 

[Grass]

Sure is possible.

But you'd still need to support that hypothesis. What reasons do we have to seriously consider we were the products of Ancient Astronauts? The particulars change, but the question remains the same (re: evidence, burden of proof, warrant for belief, etc.).

I'm in no way trying to support this claim. Like I said, it's just my 2 cents. I just gave my thoughts and opinion on it. I'm going back to lurking.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'm in no way trying to support this claim. Like I said, it's just my 2 cents. I just gave my thoughts and opinion on it. I'm going back to lurking.

So you noted in your post. Still, good to draw up the parallels. Besides, if it wasn't me, someone else was bound to interject anyway.

 

[Lichi]

How is this topic still a thing? 'God' (pick one of the many that exist and all are the one true creator of everything) becomes obsolete as soon as there is empirical proof of him/her existing. 'God' is a figure of belief, and you can only believe in things you are not certain about. That's why it is called 'believing' and not 'knowing'.

 

[ENAZ]

Alright, I've thought a bit recently, and I realized that the last few Intellectual design debates (or even just religion-related in general) I've argued in have one major problem, in that what counts as evidence for God was never actually established. For example, me proving that there's only a 10^-50 chance of the universe being able to support intelligent life won't help if the atheists won't accept that as evidence for a Designer (aka: Infinitely many universes theory, etc.)

So, I figured that in order to better structure future debates on the topic, it would be beneficial to first hammer out the ground rules, in what counts as evidence, and what doesn't.

There are two related questions I'd like to ask here.

1): What would you count as satisfactory evidence for the existence of some God?

2): What would you count as satisfactory evidence for the existence of a specific God? (Like the God of the Bible, for instance.)

the only evidence that God has given us is the ressurection of Jesus. Otherwise, we are supposed to have faith in him. the only satisfactory evidence for a hardcore athiest would be the lack of evidence for their beginning, and the trumpets sounding.

 

[ENAZ]

How is this topic still a thing? 'God' (pick one of the many that exist and all are the one true creator of everything) becomes obsolete as soon as there is empirical proof of him/her existing. 'God' is a figure of belief, and you can only believe in things you are not certain about. That's why it is called 'believing' and not 'knowing'.

atheism is the 'belief' that there is no god. there is no proof that god doesnt exist, and therefore it is a possibility. sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Sehnsucht]

atheism is the 'belief' that there is no god. there is no proof that god doesnt exist, and therefore it is a possibility. sorry to burst your bubble.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God (see [a-] for negation + [theism] for a belief in some manner of divine or spiritual reality).

"I believe there is no God" =/= "I don't believe there is a God". These may sound similar, but their implications are different. Some might say the former, but many atheists fall in the latter category (myself among them).

The world seems to work fine whether there is or is not a God; the theist proposes that, in addition to all that we already experience, there is something more. When the theist makes this claim, they have an burden to support it.

You might say an atheist would be similarly obligated to support the notion that there is no God. For those who do make that claim, perhaps that is the case. I can't speak for others, but as for myself, my position is less "there is no God", and more "why would anyone propose God as a hypothesis in the first place?".

 

[ThirdDay]

I suggest reading On Guard by William Lane Craig and a Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. Christianity isn't just about feeling good, it's about faith in the creator of the universe who is redeeming the fallen world through Jesus Christ. Hope this helped!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I suggest reading On Guard by William Lane Craig and a Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. Christianity isn't just about feeling good, it's about faith in the creator of the universe who is redeeming the fallen world through Jesus Christ. Hope this helped!

Would you care to provide any of their arguments that don't qualify as PRATT? (Examples of PRATT: Teleological Argument, Kalam, basically anything else based on cosmology.)

atheism is the 'belief' that there is no god.

That definition of atheism does not apply to anyone in the modern skeptic movement, or to any of the atheists I know of on Smashboards.

the only evidence that God has given us is the ressurection of Jesus. Otherwise, we are supposed to have faith in him.

Sounds like kind of a stupid god; he wants us to believe, but the only evidence he leaves is something that we cannot even establish happened when subjected to a standard burden of proof, let alone the burden of proof a claim that violates our understanding of reality so foundationally would call to itself. And then he expects that we have faith?! Faith, as in "belief without good reason"? What an unreasonable prick!

 

[FairyLip]

I say God falls under the burden of proof with Occam's Razor applied, just like everything else. Nothing more or less, really.

 

[Plunder]

Yea it's as simple as "If God comes down and shows himself/herself......cool, then I guess a God does exist. If that never happens then who really cares and it's not worth wasting time questioning it endlessly or worshiping a figment of imagination"

Since the beginning of time the most logical conclusion is that God didn't create humans, humans created God.....(all 11,458 of them)

 

[AnEnemyMongoose]

Yea it's as simple as "If God comes down and shows himself/herself......cool, then I guess a God does exist. If that never happens then who really cares and it's not worth wasting time questioning it endlessly or worshiping a figment of imagination"

I guess you could put it that way, but it would seem to me that you'd be taking a risk making a conclusion in that fashion.

Since the beginning of time the most logical conclusion is that God didn't create humans, humans created God.....(all 11,458 of them)

That's where it gets edgy. False religions can (and have) consistently manufactured their own deities in order that it may cater to their desires or needs, even using passages of the Bible or Torah and twisting their meaning to match their description of a "god." That's why you have so many denominations nowadays.

 

[TUMM11]

Here's my answer to question 1: look outside.
Now as for question 2:The bible.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Here's my answer to question 1: look outside.
Now as for question 2:The bible.

Where would science be without religion, eh?

 

[Plunder]

I feel like we should start a meme or something

Here's my answer to 1: Look at how perfectly this banana fits in my hand
Now as for question 2: The Star Wars prequels

 

[Whia]

Here's my answer to question 1: look outside.

I just did and saw a baby get hit by a car.

So, no god then? Alright, noted.

 

[Murlough]

To me, evidence doesn't exist. The only things that could be proof is him bellowing down at me or seeing him or the afterlife for myself.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Here's my answer to question 1: look outside.

I see trees, birds, flowers, babies... No gods, though. I'm not sure what you mean. How does the existence of the world prove the existence of a god?

Now as for question 2:The bible.

How does the existence of the bible prove the Christian god?

 

[FlusteredBat]

Any reference to the <insert holy text here> is tautological concerning the existence of a being which contradicts the definition of existence. Do you think the devout care about such minor logical inconveniences? Burden of proof is on the atheists!

 

[TUMM11]

I see trees, birds, flowers, babies... No gods, though. I'm not sure what you mean. How does the existence of the world prove the existence of a god?
Read the bible, I recommend you start with genesis.

I feel bad now because a bronie is trying to correct me.


How does the existence of the bible prove the Christian god?

Once again I say, READ THE BIBLE.