@thehomer,

thehomer:

The topic is about presenting evidence for a God. You try to expand it to an issue about worldviews. The God concept is a subset of the Christian worldview. The topic is quite specific about that.

This topic necessitates a discussion about a specific worldview - theism. If you can't get that, you can't get anything. I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists. How each person determines to approach that subject at the core of this discussion is where I wait for you to demonstrate. Until you let me know how you determine to pursue this discussion, you'd be marking time ion the same spot.

The short list I gave are some of the claims made by people with Christian worldviews. Do you agree with any or all of them?

Do I repeat myself or you here to play games?

Evidence from wiktionary
# Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.

Facts from wiktionary
Information about a particular subject.

Then please give your definition of evidence so that we can be clear on what you mean.

Please don't amuse me. If I wanted just a definition of evidence, I would not be asking you - there are loads of dictionaries where I could fetch any one of the lot, and your attempt to define evidence is giving me the idea you're not carefully reading my replies. Let me help you:

1. There are a number of definitions that are available:

    ~  'Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to
         determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion' (Wikipedia)

    ~  evidence could also be 'your basis for belief or disbelief;
         knowledge on which to base belief' (Concise English Dictionary).

2.  It is not the definitions that is most essential, but rather the approach you seek when asking for any type of 'evidence' (whether it is philosophical evidence, legal evidence, or scientific evidence) and what is involved in the idea of the 'evidence' you'e seeking.

3.  Where you fail to articulate your approach, your talk about 'evidence' is particularly vague and meaningless; because it would not help your discourse in understanding the type of subject you're dealing with.

From these, what you have done is resort to a simplistic attempt of (1) above in only giving me a definition of 'evidence' that says nothing at all, and as such, it is as vague as in your previous rejoinders. I have had to repeat myself on this point about what exactly is the type of evidence you're seeking, so that I understand if you appreciate the subject you're dealing with.

My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject, not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that! You asked me for a definition of 'supernatural', and I also obliged. Therein I also made clear that this subject is not one that is predicated on 'physicalism' where fundamentals involved are reduced to "physicalist probables".

All these things are clearly demonstrating to you that _

         1.   I have defined my terms

         2.   I understand the nature of my subject

         3.   I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject

         4.   I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)

         5.   I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.

In all these, you're not moving forward but merely cycling round on vague premises. If you cannot understand what you're asking for, what is the guarantee that you would understand a dot of the answers i would give you?

@thehomer,

thehomer:
I am not making any claim. The topic asks for theists to provide evidence for their claims like the ones I listed above. If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g

WHY would the claim of the atheist be negative and still be called a "claim"? Why does the atheist who makes any negative claim assume that he is free from any responsibility of the burden of proof? You really are making me believe you have no clue at all what you're talking about! That was why I referred you to those links about burden of proof. The only possible case where someone is not required to be responsible for any proof is an agnostic position, which was well illustrated under considerations of the examples of a burden of proof:

            (a)  Elvis is alive:                          [  *********************** ]

            (b)  I don't know if Elvis is alive:  [            ]

            (c)   Elvis is not alive:                   [ ******** ]

In (a) above, I have demonstrated that I'm willing to discuss my convictions for the existence of God from a philosophical approach where my subject is not one where fundamentals involved are reduced to "physicalist probables" (in other words, it is not 'physicalist' but rather 'supernatural'). That way, I'm not asking you the atheist to provide any proof for me, as I'm quite capable of doing that on my own by any number of philosophical approaches I adopt.

On the other hand, you're appealing to the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum where you expect to slip away easily from the burden of proof for whatever claim you make, even if it was negative. That is quite simply laughable! In metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality, the burden of proof rests on anyone making either a positive or negative claim - that is a different thing from claims made by any party in the physicalist approach.

For example, in physicalism, it does not matter whether the claimant is either a theist or atheist to be able to say it is possible to have 'a square peg in a round hole' - and either way, it is possible to describe that in literal terms by circumspections in geometry. Someone coming to make the negative counter claim that such a thing is not possible is also responsible to show with the burden of proof that it is NOT possible to have a square peg in a round hole. In this example of physicalism, it is irresponsible to say that the one who makes a negative claim is not responsible for any burden of proof.

However, in the philosophy of metaphysics, the theist who claims that 'God exists' and the atheist that claims that 'God does not exist' are both making a claim each - and either of them are saddled with the burden of proof in either case. For the atheist to then shirk responsiblity of the burden of proof here is both irresponsible and idiotic to do so, in just the same way that the theist would only assert it and show no 'evidence'  for what he claims. In this respect, the main question is this: what type of claims are they making - a physicalist claim or a metaphysical claim?

Unless you just want to ignore the particularities of each situation, you could as well speak of the farce of a single ended stick! When the atheist makes a claim - any claim - he is bound with the burden of proof in just the same way as it is contingent upon the theist to adduce proof. In your case, you're making a fallacy of the kind that is a reductio ad absurdum because you don't understand the nature of what you want to argue, and so deny any responsibility of a burden of proof! How convenient.

Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist probables. To this end, I remind you again of my perspectives -
         1.   I have defined my terms
         2.   I understand the nature of my subject
         3.   I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject
         4.   I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)
         5.   I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.
You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours - or please go tend to something else. Whatever you decide on, please by all means, don't try to bother me with appeals to simplistic distractions of vague and meaningless fallacies.

@thehomer,

I am not making any claim. The topic asks for theists to provide evidence for their claims like the ones I listed above. If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g.
1. There is no [/b]God.
If you do show evidence that there is a God, [b]you then need to prove the second statement which the atheist would indicate as this.
2. The Christian holy book is not [/b]the word of this claimed God.
[b]Then the third statement etc.

This is a joke. If I proceed to provide evidence for the claim that there is a God, you're saying that, that will not do - but I then have to sit up all day for your circus of "proving" another atheistic claim, and then argue that the Bible is not the Word of the same God that I have proven to exist! Not content with that, you the atheist would require that I have to sit like a duck to yet "prove" a third atheistic negative claim. . . and then another atheistic claim. . . and yet another atheistic negative claim - to an infinite number of atheistic absurdities of negative claims, not so?

Please wake up! Are you out of your mind?? Where in philosophy is any theist required to "prove" the negative claims that any atheist makes? Your argument above is the most idiotic postulation I ever came across on the internet! So, you an atheist makes a negative claim and require me the theist to be saddled with the responsibility of "proving" your own atheistic negative claims? Is everything alright with you at all?

What you have just done is reveal to me that you're not interested in discussing anything or finding any pointers to the existence of God or the supernatural. This is a waste of your time - and mine. I have earlier somewhere noted to toneyb that most atheists are committed to atheism and there's no "evidence" of any kind that will convince them to change their minds - they are NOT seeking to be convinced by any means, and YOU have just confirmed that assertion! Dude, please call on me again when you can sort yourself out to discuss maturely.

@viaro,dats a vry logical reasoning.I'm proud of ya.
Never argue with a fool,people may nt notice d difference.
D bible says '. . .a fool has said in hs heart,there is no God. . .'

^^ @Odunnu, you can't imagine how many times several people have warned me with precisely those words. _{proverbs 26:4} I just don't know why my stubbornness will not let me heed that admonition. Thanks again, and I just pray to endure and let it rest there.

Odunnu:

@viaro,dats a vry logical reasoning.I'm proud of ya.
Never argue with a fool,people may nt notice d difference.
D bible says '. . .a fool has said in hs heart,there is no God. . .'

Psalm 14:1.
I think u re right.I saw on a web never 'argue with(fools)atheist'
Viaro&many other theist have been able to prove d existence of God to atheists,yet they never agreed.A prof(atheist) said science doesnt have answers to all things i.e there must exist somethng dat reasons better than science.My father died at d age of 85 in 2003&He was d same man d doctors in German told to be careful in 1971.Yet he lived beyond d age d doctors warned about&died naturally.He was a lawyer till 84.I taught science could determine when a life would end,since science created d life

toba:

Viaro&many other theist have been able to prove d existence of God to atheists,yet they never agreed.

Well, I don't think I have yet "proven" the existence of God - not as yet. What I have done so far is lay the foundation of how I intended to adduce any 'proof' for God's existence. I was repeating that point over and over again, but it seemed thehoner didn't quite get it.

A lot of unnecessary arguments emerge where people do not understand the nature of what is being discussed. If someone assumes that everything in all realities must be reduced to physicalism, they should be willing to also tell us why that must be so, and whether they have conducted any and all studies to show that only physicalistic probables exist in all realities of the cosmos. That was where I was planning to bring thehomer to; but he has been scuttling round on trivial matters. He doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that any tendency to reduce all indices in reality to just materialistic and physicalist probables is immature and will not yield any fruit in these kinds of discussions.

Maybe there's a chance he might come round to these points - and I would be glad to discuss further and show him the evidence for the supernatural that his naturalism cannot refute or explain or excuse away.

After all these? U still say more to come? I fear u.
Anyway i ve got some evidences as well.So man viaro after u. Hee where them dey?(atheist)


'if u doubt d existence of God&d wind blows u,thats d presence of God being felt

viaro:




( I have earlier somewhere noted to toneyb that most atheists are committed to atheism and there's no "evidence" of any kind that will convince them to change their minds - they are NOT seeking to be convinced by any means, and YOU have just confirmed that assertion! Dude, please call on me again when you can sort yourself out to discuss maturely.

Vairo, Your evidence that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human stories and mythologies that were written about him by men, societal and cultural acceptance of men, man made doctrines about their various gods, is WHAT. Do you believe that there is a god that performs magic as described in the bible(Making stars fight against humans or sending manna from the sky). If you do then your evidence for this beside the myths that men chose to write is WHAT?. . . . Do you believe that god inspired men to write the bible? Your evidence that some god inspired men to write the bible beside their claims is what?. . . . .If I say that Allah created the universe your evidence to show that Allah did not create the universe is what?. . . . .

@mazaje, howdy?

mazaje:

Vairo, Your evidence that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human stories and mythologies that were written about him by men, societal and cultural acceptance of men, man made doctrines about their various gods, is WHAT.

Please mazaje, could you kindly stop trying to impress yourself with that old tune? You're sounding like a broken record and you need to move past that anthem you've been singing on Nairaland. If an atheist does not understand how to follow a discussion logically, he should not force himself to just talk by default. My 'evidence' will be demonstrated as soon as your atheist friends school up and show a bit more maturity in philosophical discussions - and to that end I have laid out the foundation of how I wish to proceed with my discussion, and I do not wish you to distract me with that repeated song.

Do you believe that there is a god that performs magic as described in the bible(Making stars fight against humans or sending manna from the sky).

This is an example of how brainless you can be. I believe what Revelation 6:13 states as long as you don't snatch it from its context.

If you do then your evidence for this beside the myths that men chose to write is WHAT?

Again, another broken record. When you find a fresh song, please let me know.

Do you believe that God inspired men to write the bible?

I do. Forcing yourself to write 'God' in lower case is not showing you as a rational person interested in dialogue, or I wonder what it takes to do the simple sane things. Not that I care any which way - it rather makes me feel sorry for folks who are quite too disturbed about these matters that they just have to keep forcing themselves to such things.

Your evidence that some God inspired men to write the bible beside their claims is what?

Another broken record. . . like above.

If I say that Allah created the universe your evidence to show that Allah did not create the universe is what?

If as an atheist you are making a concrete claim for Allah, please let's have a discussion - I am very, very interested and will stand you any day on that one!! But if you are only making that claim and skipping the responsibility of the burden of proof for that claim as yours, there are only two things to conclude: (a) an atheist only makes a claim that he does not wish to stand for; or (b) the atheist who makes such a claim that he does not want to sustain is a liar.

If you do not wish to argue for Allah, leave it to the one who believes in such a deity to stand for his own worldview - I don't have any problem with such people, since it is not my worldview. I have said that I do not intend to waste my time with atheistic arguments that are not concrete for themselves - most often, the atheist who does not understand what he wants to discuss would resort to the fallacy of a strawman argument and any number of reductio ad absurdum. That is not something that would be of any interest to either of us, mazaje. Please look again at what I posted in my reply to thehomer and understand what I've been saying. Cheers.

That i have fingers to respond to this alone is enuf evidence of God, the I am, who I am

viaro:

@thehomer,
This topic necessitates a discussion about a specific worldview - theism. If you can't get that, you can't get anything. I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists. How each person determines to approach that subject at the core of this discussion is where I wait for you to demonstrate. Until you let me know how you determine to pursue this discussion, you'd be marking time ion the same spot.

Since you feel it necessitates discussion about a specific worldview, please go ahead and discuss it. I'm trying to limit it because it would simply be cumbersome in this discussion of one of the concepts in the worldview.

viaro:

Please don't amuse me. If I wanted just a definition of evidence, I would not be asking you - there are loads of dictionaries where I could fetch any one of the lot, and your attempt to define evidence is giving me the idea you're not carefully reading my replies. Let me help you:

1. There are a number of definitions that are available:

    ~  'Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to
         determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion' (Wikipedia)

    ~  evidence could also be 'your basis for belief or disbelief;
         knowledge on which to base belief' (Concise English Dictionary).

2.  It is not the definitions that is most essential, but rather the approach you seek when asking for any type of 'evidence' (whether it is philosophical evidence, legal evidence, or scientific evidence) and what is involved in the idea of the 'evidence' you'e seeking.

3.  Where you fail to articulate your approach, your talk about 'evidence' is particularly vague and meaningless; because it would not help your discourse in understanding the type of subject you're dealing with.

From these, what you have done is resort to a simplistic attempt of (1) above in only giving me a definition of 'evidence' that says nothing at all, and as such, it is as vague as in your previous rejoinders. I have had to repeat myself on this point about what exactly is the type of evidence you're seeking, so that I understand if you appreciate the subject you're dealing with.

You are now attempting to make sense without telling me what you would consider evidence.
I already told you that if your concept of God tallies with that of the Christian faith, he should still be leaving some evidence of his existence which can be detected scientifically. Does it not follow that I'm speaking of scientific evidence?
Before you start babbling about "physicalist probables" or other such events, here is an example. Occurrence of events like resurrections, medical miracles, animals speaking etc are physical occurrences which can be tested where do you think such claims fall?

viaro:

My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject, not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that! You asked me for a definition of 'supernatural', and I also obliged. Therein I also made clear that this subject is not one that is predicated on 'physicalism' where fundamentals involved are reduced to "physicalist probables".

Aah but you did not define supernatural in any meaningful way. You're still saying "physicalist probables". You have not indicated what that phrase means.

viaro:

All these things are clearly demonstrating to you that _

         1.   I have defined my terms

You have not defined physicalist probables and supernatural in any meaningful way to begin with. I mean how can one tell that something is a "physicalist probable"?

viaro:

         2.   I understand the nature of my subject

Do you really?

viaro:

         3.   I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject

This is all you have done. Showing that you wish to run into metaphysics where you can give more words like "physicalist probables" without defining terms and clarifying issues.

viaro:

         4.   I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)

More like attempting to shift the parameters.

viaro:

         5.   I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.

And I'm pointing out to you that it touches on some basic scientific facts before you run into your philosophical underpinnings.

viaro:

In all these, you're not moving forward but merely cycling round on vague premises. If you cannot understand what you're asking for, what is the guarantee that you would understand a dot of the answers i would give you?

Like I asked before what are the vague premises I am cycling round on? I'm asking for your evidence if you feel you have to run into metaphysics to provide it, please go ahead. But be sure to keep at the back of your mind the scientific claims it makes.

viaro:


@thehomer,
For example, in physicalism, it does not matter whether the claimant is either a theist or atheist to be able to say it is possible to have 'a square peg in a round hole' - and either way, it is possible to describe that in literal terms circumspections in geometry. Someone coming to make the negative counter claim that such a thing is not possible is also responsible to show with the burden of proof that it is NOT possible to have a square peg in a round hole. In this example of physicalism, it is irresponsible to say that the one who makes a negative claim is not responsible for any burden of proof.

Oh my he knows how to use analogies.

viaro:

However, in the philosophy of metaphysics, the theist who claims that 'God exists' and the atheist that claims that 'God does not exist' are both making a claim each - and either of them are saddled with the burden of proof in either case. For the atheist to then shirk responsiblity of the burden of proof here is both irresponsible and idiotic to do so, in just the same way that the theist would only assert it and show no 'evidence' for what he claims. In this respect, the main question is this: what type of claims are they making - a physicalist claim or a metaphysical claim?

Coming from someone trying to argue an analogy. Which is what you have asserted without showing evidence making you what? Here's a clue both words start with an "i".
Now you are a bit clearer. I guess I should have said the burden of proof rests more with the theist. There you go you now have the floor.

viaro:

Unless you just want to ignore the particularities of each situation, you could as well speak of the farce of a single ended stick! When the atheist makes a claim - any claim - he is bound with the burden of proof in just the same way as it is contingent upon the theist to adduce proof. In your case, you're making a fallacy of the kind that is a reductio ad absurdum because you don't understand the nature of what you want to argue, and so deny any responsibility of a burden of proof! How convenient.

So what is the nature of this God of yours?

viaro:

@thehomer,

This is a joke. If I proceed to provide evidence for the claim that there is a God, you're saying that, that will not do - but I then have to sit up all day for your circus of "proving" another atheistic claim, and then argue that the Bible is not the Word of the same God that I have proven to exist! Not content with that, you the atheist would require that I have to sit like a duck to yet "prove" a third atheistic negative claim. . . and then another atheistic claim. . . and yet another atheistic negative claim - to an infinite number of atheistic absurdities of negative claims, not so?

I'm pleased you are amused. Does it not follow logically? I mean there are so many Gods that I would like to know how you know that the one you prove is the same as the one in the Bible and not the Koran, not Zeus, not Thor.

viaro:

Please wake up!   Are you out of your mind?? Where in philosophy is any theist required to "prove" the negative claims that any atheist makes? Your argument above is the most idiotic postulation I ever came across on the internet! So, you an atheist makes a negative claim and require me the theist to be saddled with the responsibility of "proving" your own atheistic negative claims? Is everything alright with you at all?

Where did I ask you to prove a negative claim? This comes from someone trying to argue an analogy. You are quite a confused person who is not even wrong.

viaro:

What you have just done is reveal to me that you're not interested in discussing anything or finding any pointers to the existence of God or the supernatural. This is a waste of your time - and mine. I have earlier somewhere noted to toneyb that most atheists are committed to atheism and there's no "evidence" of any kind that will convince them to change their minds - they are NOT seeking to be convinced by any means, and YOU have just confirmed that assertion! Dude, please call on me again when you can sort yourself out to discuss maturely.

He says all this without providing any evidence even on his own terms. Oh my you make me laugh.

Odunnu:

@viaro,dats a vry logical reasoning.I'm proud of ya.
Never argue with a fool,people may nt notice d difference.
D bible says '. . .a fool has said in hs heart,there is no God. . .'

Hurray out come the praise singers. Quoting the bible. You say his reasoning is logical yet he has not provided evidence on his own terms.

viaro:

^^ @Odunnu, you can't imagine how many times several people have warned me with precisely those words. _{proverbs 26:4} I just don't know why my stubbornness will not let me heed that admonition. Thanks again, and I just pray to endure and let it rest there.

God has not answered your prayers.

toba:

Psalm 14:1.
I think u re right.I saw on a web never 'argue with(fools)atheist'
Viaro&many other theist have been able to prove d existence of God to atheists,yet they never agreed.A prof(atheist) said science doesnt have answers to all things i.e there must exist somethng dat reasons better than science.My father died at d age of 85 in 2003&He was d same man d doctors in German told to be careful in 1971.Yet he lived beyond d age d doctors warned about&died naturally.He was a lawyer till 84.I taught science could determine when a life would end,since science created d life

Come on Toba you still have issues to discuss with me.

I'm sorry for your loss.

You really have a poor knowledge about science and the scientific method of gaining knowledge.
Here's a link to start you off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Go ahead and read. I promise it won't hurt you.

toba:

After all these? U still say more to come? I fear u.
Anyway i ve got some evidences as well.So man viaro after u. Hee where them dey?(atheist)

'if u doubt d existence of God&d wind blows u,thats d presence of God being felt

Go ahead and provide your evidence. Why are you waiting for viaro?

Wind is not the presence of God, it is the movement of a large enough amount of gases.

Fhemmmy:

That i have fingers to respond to this alone is enuf evidence of God, the I am, who I am

The evidence you have given is not good enough. Others with fingers responding to this have arrived at other conclusions. Come on I hope you can do better than that.

mazaje:

Vairo, Your evidence that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human stories and mythologies that were written about him by men, societal and cultural acceptance of men, man made doctrines about their various gods, is WHAT. Do you believe that there is a god that performs magic as described in the bible(Making stars fight against humans or sending manna from the sky). If you do then your evidence for this beside the myths that men chose to write is WHAT?. . . . Do you believe that god inspired men to write the bible? Your evidence that some god inspired men to write the bible beside their claims is what?. . . . .If I say that Allah created the universe your evidence to show that Allah did not create the universe is what?. . . . .

So you see mazaje he simply refuses to give his evidence to the world because we would not understand.

Why does he believe what it says in Revelation 6:13?

He then wants someone to debate with him the existence of another mythical concept. From someone accusing me of trying to make him prove what he does not believe.

Dont mind viaro jo this is just basically jumping up and down and running in crazy circles. The theist is the one who makes the claim, the atheist does not believe it case closed!

Chrisbenogor:

Dont mind viaro jo this is just basically jumping up and down and running in crazy circles. The theist is the one who makes the claim, the atheist does not believe it case closed!

I was not running in circles. I was waiting for him to fool himself to the zenith. You cannot pretend I have not laid out my simple approach and the requested that he do the same - did he? You guys make me laugh at your hollow back-patting.

Okay, thehomer, now that you seem to be done, let me answer you quickly.

thehomer:

Since you feel it necessitates discussion about a specific worldview, please go ahead and discuss it. I'm trying to limit it because it would simply be cumbersome in this discussion of one of the concepts in the worldview.

I said before: "I have had to repeat myself on this point about what exactly is the type of evidence you're seeking, so that I understand if you appreciate the subject you're dealing with."

You are now attempting to make sense without telling me what you would consider evidence.

I already explained it - in detail.

I already told you that if your concept of God tallies with that of the Christian faith, he should still be leaving some evidence of his existence which can be detected scientifically. Does it not follow that I'm speaking of scientific evidence?

I already said: "You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural."

Before you start babbling about "physicalist probables" or other such events, here is an example. Occurrence of events like resurrections, medical miracles, animals speaking etc are physical occurrences which can be tested where do you think such claims fall?

What type of "science" do you use to test a miracle? You just come here blab like a no-brainer, and when you can't handle what you force yourself to state, then you assume that I was blabbing because the term "physicalist probables" is too much for you to handle? Please.

@thehomer,

Aah but you did not define supernatural in any meaningful way. You're still saying "physicalist probables". You have not indicated what that phrase means.

Do you understand the difference between "Physicalism" and "Supernatural"? If you are not satisfied with how I explained them, then give me your own explanation. Whatever you do, please by all means be as logical as I offered you here.

You have not defined physicalist probables and supernatural in any meaningful way to begin with. I mean how can one tell that something is a "physicalist probable"?

As an atheist, it is a shame that you are making out that you have not heard the term "Physicalism" before, no? Or are you deliberately being mischievous? If you did not know before now, is it too much for you to first go and find out before coming with an empty yap complaining you don't know what I mean? You atheists just amaze me with how hollow you can sound sometimes.

Do you really?

I perfectly do. Have you demonstrated any inkling of this subject? Please don't lie - if you have, you would not be coming back making silly remarks. Let me know when you have schooled yourself up a bit to grasp what you want to discuss.

This is all you have done. Showing that you wish to run into metaphysics where you can give more words like "physicalist probables" without defining terms and clarifying issues.

I do not wish to "run" into metaphysics. Even informed atheists know that discussions on worldviews like this are predicated on the philosophy of metaphysics, because the fundamentals involved are pointing to an understanding of types of realities. If you're complaining here about metaphysics, I can sympathise with you and understand why you have been scuttling round in circles with strawman fallacies. . . which is not surprising, because I already noted that an atheist never settles down to make any concrete point and has to wave reductio ad absurdum in our face as his first-aid.

@all the theists
The topic title says ''Could You Give Me One Piece Of Significant Evidence Of A God?" so all the thiests who partake in this topic should've come with thier evidence to prove gods existance.

manmustwac:

@all the theists
The topic title says ''Could You Give Me One Piece Of Significant Evidence Of A God?" so all the thiests who partake in this topic should've come with thier evidence to prove gods existance.

Are you blind as to not see the atheists who cannot follow a simple discussion? Please pack yourself one corner instead of screaming in red.

@thehomer,

More like attempting to shift the parameters.

That's simply saying you're too challenged and find this subject too much for you.

And I'm pointing out to you that it touches on some basic scientific facts before you run into your philosophical underpinnings.

Again I have to say: "You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural." If you don't know the nature of what you're asking, stop[ crying - go and ask your atheists profs why they are too scared of philosophy, and dry your tears.

Like I asked before what are the vague premises I am cycling round on? I'm asking for your evidence if you feel you have to run into metaphysics to provide it, please go ahead. But be sure to keep at the back of your mind the scientific claims it makes.

I have said this before:[list]

Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist probables. To this end, I remind you again of my perspectives -
1. I have defined my terms
2. I understand the nature of my subject
3. I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject
4. I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)
5. I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.
You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours - or please go tend to something else. Whatever you decide on, please by all means, don't try to bother me with appeals to simplistic distractions of vague and meaningless fallacies.

[/list]
Now where is your own outline? WHY are you running round in circles and never able to oblige anything? Dude, this is not going to be something that you're familiar with, because if you think viaro is one of 'em people you can just wave strawman arguments for and dribble, you don't have a clue what's in store for you. If you have anything concrete to present, please do so - we take it in steps. But if you don't have anything and still shirking responsibility, please go and find a TV cartoon to watch or do something else.

thehomer:

Oh my he knows how to use analogies.

Haha. . you don't, and I can sympathise.

Coming from someone trying to argue an analogy. Which is what you have asserted without showing evidence making you what? Here's a clue both words start with an "i".
Now you are a bit clearer. I guess I should have said the burden of proof rests more with the theist. There you go you now have the floor.

Dude, please go back to school - you're acting like a stray lost school kid. What two words start with an 'i'? Are you drunk or something?

So what is the nature of this God of yours?

Oh goodness! Did you ever read my reply or you were chased out of a bar?? Did you not read my reply where I mentioned these -

(a) "My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject,
not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that!"??

(b) "Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence
of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist
probables."

Look, thehomer, there's something that I don't entertain from my discussants: and that is the tendency to be either duplicitous or ignorant - I'd bear with anyone on the latter, as long as there ignorance is sincere. . . but duplicity is not something I entertain. You seem to be acting strange in pretending not to have seen my answers to these same issues you're recycling ad infinitum, and that is beginning to show you as dubious, I'm sorry. My discussions are not about winning points or a debate. I believe in sharing knowledge and leaving it off for the other person to consider. But when you go about with nothing concrete on your part and just repeating hollow lines which have been dealt with, I don't take you seriously. If you're not going to discuss, please let me know so I can roundly ignore you once and for all.

thehomer:
I'm pleased you are amused. Does it not follow logically? I mean there are so many Gods that I would like to know how you know that the one you prove is the same as the one in the Bible and not the Koran, not Zeus, not Thor.

That's another amusing atheistic no-brainer. Is this thread or our discussion about proving the existence of all deities in all worldviews - or rather my convictions for my own case? I see all these shallow statement of yours as excuses that are yet not concrete where you just want to amuse yourself: you're not seeking a responsible, rational dialogue. Please oblige me my request (if you may) and demonstrate that you understand the nature of what you want to discuss, in just the same way as I have done. Failing to do so is one reason why I should not take you any seriously.

Where did I ask you to prove a negative claim? This comes from someone trying to argue an analogy. You are quite a confused person who is not even wrong.

hahahah. . . I could not be wrong, thank you for that acknowledgement. But your confusion remains your own and i have no share in that! If you want to again flash your duplicity, there are other ways to do so instead of this miserly pretence of yours. Are you not the same person who said this -

If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g.
1. There is no God.
If you do show evidence that there is a God, you then need to prove the second statement which the atheist would indicate as this.
2. The Christian holy book is not the word of this claimed God.
Then the third statement etc.

Please tell me: where in philosophy is a theist required to prove any negative statement of an ATHEIST? Please show me - it's either you're a dunce, or a fellow struggling with his deceit. Either way, choose any that would light up your CV.

He says all this without providing any evidence even on his own terms. Oh my you make me laugh.

I'm waiting for you, as I already outlined the basis of my willingness to discuss with you -as long as you fulfill just one request I left you, highlighted in red below ~
[list]

viaro: Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist probables. To this end, I remind you again of my perspectives -
1. I have defined my terms
2. I understand the nature of my subject
3. I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject
4. I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)
5. I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.
[size=14pt]You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours[/size] - or please go tend to something else. Whatever you decide on, please by all means, don't try to bother me with appeals to simplistic distractions of vague and meaningless fallacies.

[/list]

If you cannot oblige me, please run along and do something else. You're just a brainless time-waster.

Science does not have the answer to all questions. The scientific theory of the creation of the universe; the big bang theory that the universe was created by a massive nuclear explosion derived from one single atom.

Question. Who or what put the atom there?

A little child can ask a question and its mother will duly answer. The child will ask "why?". The mother will answer and to her reply the child will again ask "why?". Eventually the mother will run out of answers.

Likewise science will find answers to how the universe was created, but we can keep coming back with the question "what or who put that there?"

We can only conclude that there must be a creator. Whether we call that creator God, Allah, Jehovah or Boogleboogleboogle it doesn't matter. How we choose to worship that creator again it doesn't really matter.

Just one last question, can science answer the question "what is the purpose of life?"

norri:

Science does not have the answer to all questions.

Thank you. I am waiting for the atheist to tell me what type of science they want to use to answer questions about the supernatural. Any atheist could just shout "science" when they have no clue what they're talking about.

Just one last question, can science answer the question "what is the purpose of life?"

That's another one that "science" does not answer as it is one about value system. I am waiting for the atheist to show me a "scientific" answer for the purpose of anything.

viaro:

Thank you. I am waiting for the atheist to tell me what type of science they want to use to answer questions about the supernatural. Any atheist could just shout "science" when they have no clue what they're talking about.

What is the supernatural and hw can it be objectively observed? Atheism is NOT science. Atheism is the lack of belief of the gods that theist claim exist.

That's another one that "science" does not answer as it is one about value system. I am waiting for the atheist to show me a "scientific" answer for the purpose of anything.

Atheism is not science.

thehomer:

So you see mazaje he simply refuses to give his evidence to the world because we would not understand.

Did I say that you or anybody would not understand? Where did I say so? Please quote me.

Why does he believe what it says in Revelation 6:13?

He then wants someone to debate with him the existence of another mythical concept. From someone accusing me of trying to make him prove what he does not believe.

I'm not forcing you to prove what I believe in, nor did I try to make you prove what you do not believe in. If you don't mind keeping your atheistic lies to yourself, thanks.

mazaje:

What is the supernatural and hw can it be objectively observed?

I defined it here. I'm sorry I don't wish to repeat myself unnecessarily.

Atheism is NOT science. Atheism is the lack of belief of the gods that theist claim exist.

Please keep focus - I don't remember saying or even trying to say anywhere that Atheism is science. I could as well note that theism is NOT science - thanks for shoutng it. But there again, I do not take your simplistic idea of what atheism is or is not. We have been through this before, and I noted that your own atheism is yours, it is not the atheism of anyone else. So, while I can appreciate your own atheism as best suited to you and you alone, it does not have any reference to the atheism of most many other atheists, sorry.

Atheism is not science.

Did I say it is science? What are you on about?

Viaro lol you wan kill me with laugh here, see me see wahala. Oya can we start afresh?  

Chrisbenogor:

Viaro lol you wan kill me with laugh here, see me see wahala. Oya can we start afresh?

^^
Hahaha. . . where do you want to start from? You want me to go back again after all what I posted? I don't think I'm a gramophone!! Sorry oya!

There is one very physical evidence of "a" God, and that is, JAMES CAMERON.Mr. Cameron is the God of the AVATAR TALE and Pandora because he CREATED that world, even if it was in his mind(fiction fantasy), it makes absolutely no difference.Imagine Jake Sully or any of the other characters in the avatar world wasting their times trying to prove the existence and identity of James Cameron, or Frodo Bergins trying to figure out who JRR Tolkien is.
What i am trying to say here is that we are all God because we can all create anything we want or need, even if it is in our fantasy or dream, it matters not.Creation is creation.We can create universes with as many species of living beings inhabiting them as we want.Any being is only a Creator God relative to the world which it creates.If it does not create, then it is neither a creator nor a god.

If by significant evident, the threadstater meant providing the ID of the creator/s of this reality that i find myself, then it is very obviously a ridiculous idea.