Religion is a set of assumptions that has never been proven. Religion defies logic in the sense that, it doesn't need evidence to make a claim. It makes such claims and then starts looking for evidence to justify them.
Religious people do not even know what should be regarded as evidence for any phenomenon, they create insane and baseless ideas and then battle whatever evidence against it or start making up more claims to back it up.

When you ask a religious person to provide evidence for miracles; he tells you that he has experienced miracles and he expects you to accept that as an evidence. I can as well tell you that I am typing this from Mars, I do not think that you are stupid enough to take my word for it.
Evidence is testable and the result of the test will be reproducible.

For example, if a Christian makes a claim of miracles, whether or not you have experienced it in your life isn't enough evidence to say miracles are real because we cannot test that evidence, that's not even any evidence to start with. How do you propose that we test it?

In any situation, there are variables, in the case if your miracle claims, we have many variables that can affect outcome, variables like; probabilities and natural explanations. It is why we need a control to ascertain your miracle claim.
When conducting an experiment, a control is an element that remains unchanged or unaffected by other variables. It's used as a benchmark or a point of comparison against which other test results are measured.

If you make a miracle claim that a man was healed of HIV, what are the questions you should ask before accepting it?

1. Does this man have a reliable test result? If yes or no, you still have to redo the HIV test by yourself to say for sure that he had HIV.

2. If he had HIV, how do we know that it was miraculously healed and not a factor of some other variables that we don't know?

3. Can this pastor repeat this miracle on other HIV patients? This is the only way to know for sure that miracles can actually heal HIV.
By doing this, we will present for example 100 HIV patients to him, he has to heal 95% of them to attain a statistical significance, the remaining 5% can be regarded as margin of error. Healing 95 out of 100 validates the reproducibility of the tested evidence.

4. We will have control samples of HIV patients, he will then compare the result of the experiment with the control. The control in this case are those patient who will not have encounter with the pastor, if some of them get healed then it means that maybe some other variables and not the prayers of the pastor is responsible for the healing. If none of the control is healed then it's clear evidence that the pastor can heal HIV.


This is how to make evidence, you don't just make claims and then boom, you expect us to believe it. It has to be tested. Testimonies are never evidence. It's more and more claims

The problem with your thesis is that you fail to see that everything in our reality is an assumption - we have NO WAY of proving that reality exists as we experience it

PoliteActivist:
The problem with your thesis is that you fail to see that everything in our reality is an assumption - we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it

this is strawman.
The issue here is not to prove reality, the issue here to to prove the potency of miracle using controlled method just the same way you can prove that levofloxacin can cure typhoid fever.

Whether or not reality can be proven, it wont affect the result

PoliteActivist:
The problem with your thesis is that you fail to see that everything in our reality is an assumption - we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it

Then there exists no basis upon which to declare the existence of any deity, its that simple.

Workch:
this is strawman.
The issue here is not to prove reality, the issue here to to prove the potency of miracle using controlled method just the same way you can prove that levofloxacin can cure typhoid fever.

Whether or not reality can be proven, it wont affect the result

Well, you started with Atheists in your heading, not miracle. So you have to open another thread titled "miracles cannot be proven using scientific methods"!

LordReed:


Then there exists no basis upon which to declare the existence of any deity, its that simple.

And there is no basis to declare the non-existence of any. Which is exactly my point

PoliteActivist:


And there is no basis to declare the non-existence of any. Which is exactly my point

Great so I am happy to discard all of it.

LordReed:


Great so I am happy to discard all of it.

Great! Just don't go a step further and state there is no God.
Problem is those who keep demanding conclusive proofs when there are no conclusive proofs in our reality. All we have are assumptions and circumstantial proofs - which leads right back to a designer. Things are too well orchestrated and too just right to have been chance!

PoliteActivist:


Great! Just don't go a step further and state there is no God.
Problem is those who keep demanding conclusive proofs when there are no conclusive proofs in our reality. All we have are assumptions and circumstantial proofs - which leads right back to a designer. Things are too well orchestrated and too just right to have been chance!

Which designer again? Thought you said “ everything in our reality is an assumption”, and reality doesn’t exist.”?

PoliteActivist:


Great! Just don't go a step further and state there is no God.
Problem is those who keep demanding conclusive proofs when there are no conclusive proofs in our reality. All we have are assumptions and circumstantial proofs - which leads right back to a designer. Things are too well orchestrated and too just right to have been chance!

Go find me where I stated there is no god. I don't believe in any god and since there is no evidence to be had then don't tell me about any designer, you have no basis to tell about any such designer as stated by you yourself.

PoliteActivist:


Great! Just don't go a step further and state there is no God.
Problem is those who keep demanding conclusive proofs when there are no conclusive proofs in our reality. All we have are assumptions and circumstantial proofs - which leads right back to a designer. Things are too well orchestrated and too just right to have been chance!

LMAO! Things are just too right? Are you sure?

Judybash93:


LMAO! Things are just too right? Are you sure?

Can you imagine? The same person saying reality is not real is now telling me about designer. LMAO!

PoliteActivist:


Great! Just don't go a step further and state there is no God.
Problem is those who keep demanding conclusive proofs when there are no conclusive proofs in our reality. All we have are assumptions and circumstantial proofs - which leads right back to a designer. Things are too well orchestrated and too just right to have been chance!

Which particular 'designer'? There's at least 1000 of them

Maynman:


Which designer again? Thought you said “ everything in our reality is an assumption”, and reality doesn’t exist.”?

Being sarcastic. You know full well I never said reality does not exist

LordReed:


Go find me where I stated there is no god. I don't believe in any god and since there is no evidence to be had then don't tell me about any designer, you have no basis to tell about any such designer as stated by you yourself.

You forget you said just that TO ME few days ago. I'll find it and post-it here.
As for designer, in this our reality, a pot of soup will not come together and cook itself without a cook. That's how our reality functions

PoliteActivist:


Being sarcastic. You know full well I never said reality does not exist

“ we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it”

Judybash93:


LMAO! Things are just too right? Are you sure?

YES! You don't have a man then just accidentally have a woman that meets all his needs. And as you get older you find older people that used to repulse you as a kid now quite attractive. Explain that

Maynman:


“ we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it”

So that there is equivalent to saying reality does not exist? You sure u ok?

PoliteActivist:


So that there is equivalent to saying reality does not exist? You sure u ok?

What does this mean? “ we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it”

I’m ok, and you?

jaephoenix:

Which particular 'designer'? There's at least 1000 of them

Take your pick. As long as you accept that a pot of soup cannot cook itself by accident. That our reality, as we perceive it, does not work that way

Maynman:


What does this mean? “ we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it”

I’m ok, and you?

AS WE EXPERIENCE IT!!!!!

Can't you read??!!

PoliteActivist:


Take your pick. As long as you accept that a pot of soup cannot cook itself by accident. That our reality, as we perceive it, does not work that way

A pot of soup can be cooked by more than 20 people.
Then we need to ask, who created the pot? Who created the ingredients, who taught them how to cook? who created the fire they used?etc

PoliteActivist:


AS WE EXPERIENCE IT!!!!!

Can't you read??!!

What does this mean? “ we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it”

You that can read, answer.

PoliteActivist:


You forget you said just that TO ME few days ago. I'll find it and post-it here.
As for designer, in this our reality, a pot of soup will not come together and cook itself without a cook. That's how our reality functions

LoLz Go ahead i am here waiting. Meanwhile this what you said:

PoliteActivist:
The problem with your thesis is that you fail to see that everything in our reality is an assumption - we have NO WAY of proving that reality exists as we experience it

Reality is not real is what you said implies and yet you want to propose a designer so all you want is for me to shut up while you propose a god. Nope not accepted. If I have to shut up then you have to as well, no exceptions.

Whether you say “Was the universe always here or did it pop out of nowhere?” or “Was your favorite God always here or did it pop out of nowhere?”, it’s the same question.

PoliteActivist:


Take your pick. As long as you accept that a pot of soup cannot cook itself by accident. That our reality, as we perceive it, does not work that way

Lets just assume its your favourite cook. How do we know its him/her/they/it that cooked it, and what was the ingredients

Maynman:


A pot of soup can be cooked by more than 20 people.
Then we need to ask, who created the pot? Who created the ingredients, who taught them how to cook? who created the fire they used?etc

… and who created the cook/s?

Maynman:


A pot of soup can be cooked by more than 20 people.
Then we need to ask, who created the pot? Who created the ingredients, who taught them how to cook? who created the fire they used?etc

Irrelevant. You just have to accept that the soup did not cook itself!

PoliteActivist:


Irrelevant. You just have to accept that the soup did not cook itself!

Whether you say “Was the universe always here or did it pop out of nowhere?” or “Was your favorite God always here or did it pop out of nowhere?”, it’s the same question.

Maynman:


What does this mean? “ we have NO WAY of proving that reality exist as we experience it”

You that can read, answer.

Stop pretending you are an idiot.
REALITY EXISTS!!!!
We just have no way of knowing it's true nature!!!!!!

PoliteActivist:


Stop pretending you are an idiot.
REALITY EXISTS!!!!
We just have no way of knowing it's true nature!!!!!!

Stop being a fool.
If you don’t know something true nature, how did you know it exist?
You must have experienced the “true nature” to be able to differentiate it from false.

Do you know if flying tortoise exist?

LordReed:


LoLz Go ahead i am here waiting. Meanwhile this what you said:

Reality is not real is what you said implies and yet you want to propose a designer so all you want is for me to shut up while you propose a god. Nope not accepted. If I have to shut up then you have to as well, no exceptions.

What is "real"? Stop playing with words. What I clearly said is that we have no way of knowing the true nature of reality