We are all used to the normal narrative of demanding for evidence on the subject of God.

True the onus lies on the positor not the negator to present proof.

But to arrive somewhere one thing must be substantiated.

E.G: In science, a good theory is one that makes predictions that can either be confirmed or falsified.

If this predictions are confirmed, the theory garners a degree of proof to its merits.

If falsified based on this prediction, it is discarded.

In this example, the primary factor is is prediction.

What to expect

So atheists, what do you consider to be the thesis that must be confirmed for the theory of God to make sense?

Theists, what do you consider the greatest pointer that suggests the existence of God?

None whatsoever.

Evangkatsoulis:
None whatsoever.

I don't understand.

Do you subscribe to the atheistic or theistic world view?

If they can consistently show that prayer in the name of Jesus alone and not without makes amputees whole, blind to see, dumb to speak, deaf to hear, heals terminal diseases, perform miracles and raise the dead.

If they can, through their god, predict with 100% accuracy events difficult for a normal human being to predict.

If they can, with hundred percent accuracy, read my mind through their holy spirit.

NB: THIS APPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN GOD

Martinez19:
If they can consistently show that prayer in the name of Jesus alone and not without makes amputees whole, blind to see, dumb to speak, deaf to hear, heals terminal diseases, perform miracles and raise the dead.


If they can, through their god, predict with 100% accuracy events difficult for a normal human being to predict.

If they can, with hundred percent accuracy, read my mind through their holy spirit.

NB: THIS APPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN GOD

Does your atheism/skepticism apply on to the Christian God?

- What if the God in question is not the judeo-Chrisrian God

- What if the God in question is some form of desitic concept that transcend the conventional religious conception?

johnydon22:


Does your atheism/skepticism apply on to the Christian God?

- What if the God in question is not the judeo-Chrisrian God

- What if the God in question is some form of desitic concept that transcend the conventional religious conception?

If it's for other gods, I will test them on their claims and supernatural attributes as given in their holy book as I just did for the christian god. At least the faithful of any god must provide an irrefutable, unshakeable and sound logical pathway from observable reality to his/her god and it's suppose attribute and claim in its holy book thereof.

johnydon22:


Does your atheism/skepticism apply on to the Christian God?

- What if the God in question is not the judeo-Chrisrian God

- What if the God in question is some form of desitic concept that transcend the conventional religious conception?

Easy o.

This question is too hard for that young lad.

Martinez19:
If it's for other gods, I will test them on their claims and supernatural attributes as given in their holy book as I just did for the christian god. At least the faithful of any god must provide an irrefutable, unshakeable and sound logical pathway from observable reality to his/her god and it's suppose attribute and claim in its holy book thereof.

Great answer.

What if then this concept is not confined to religious books or claims.

E:G a deistic God.

The claim for a deistic God mostly is "God created the cosmos"

What do you think would be sufficient evidence required to add credence to this claim in order to satisfy your skepticism?

johnydon22:


Great answer.

What if then this concept is not confined to religious books or claims.

E:G a deistic God.

The claim is for a deistic God mostly is "God created the cosmos"

What do you think would be sufficient evidence required to add credence to this claim in order to satisfy your skepticism?

Very good. There need not be a holy book or claim. If one has an idea of god, he/she must provide a sound, unshakeable and irrefutable logical pathway from observable reality to his/her idea of god for me to believe or else we can agree to disagree.

johnydon22:


Great answer.

What if then this concept is not confined to religious books or claims.

E:G a deistic God.

The claim for a deistic God mostly is "God created the cosmos"

What do you think would be sufficient evidence required to add credence to this claim in order to satisfy your skepticism?

I don't think a deistic god can be provedone or disproved.
there is no way of falsifying a deistic god.

Martinez19:
Very good. There need not be a holy book or claim. If one has an idea of god, he/she must provide a sound, unshakeable and irrefutable logical pathway from observable reality to his/her idea of god for me to believe or else we can agree to disagree.

This answer I say is quite ambiguous.

Any example of such observable reality? Any idea of what to expect?

If we do not exactly what to expect as proof, how do we recognize such proof when we are faced with one?

Gggg102:


I don't think a deistic god can be provedone or disproved.
there is no way of falsifying a deistic god.

Therefore a Deistic is not a good theory then. Yes?

johnydon22:

Therefore a Deistic is not a good theory then. Yes?

yes

Gggg102:


yes

Which would you consider a good theory?

johnydon22:
This answer I say is quite ambiguous.

Any example of such observable reality? Any idea of what to expect?

If we do not exactly what to expect as proof, how do we recognize such proof when we are faced with one?

What to expect? I don't have what to expect and even if there is something to expect, it might very with individual. What I would expect depends on one's idea of god and it's attributes if stated. Any proof that is laden with logic and sound reasoning can be spotted if and only if one is open minded. If one simply says there is a god and stops there, there must be a reason. Question is "is your reason logical?" one doesn't need to have an expectation to spot a sound logical reasoning.

Martinez19:
What to expect? I don't have what to expect and even if there is something to expect, it might very with individual. What I would expect depends on one's idea of god and it's attributes if stated. Any proof that is laden with logic and sound reasoning can be spotted if and only if one is open minded. If one simply says there is a god and stops there, there must be a reason. Question is "is your reason logical?" one doesn't need to have an expectation to spot a sound logical reasoning.

How would you recognize this proof if one is presented since you expect nothing in this respect?

Take for instance: A religious person says, God created man.

What proof do you expect that validates this claim?

CAPSLOCKED:

THE ONLY THING I NEED IS FOR THE GOD TO SPEAK TO ALL OF US AT ONCE AND TELL US WHAT IT WANTS (THIS INCLUDES GENERATIONS OF UNBORN HUMANS) INSTEAD OF SPEAKING TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN A TRANCE WHICH HAS LED TO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS OF IT'S WORD AND INSTRUCTIONS.

IF IT'S REAL, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE CREATURES IT WANTS TO ATTRACT.

And if God doesn't communicate at all with humans? What then would you regard good evidence for God (deism) ?

johnydon22:


How would you recognize this proof if one is presented since you expect nothing in this respect?

Take for instance: A religious person says, God created man.

What proof do you expect that validates this claim?

LOL. Even though I expect nothing except unshakeable and irrefutable logic and sound reasoning which I would unfailingly spot (if and only if I am open minded) nevertheless, for this claim to be true, the following must be true or The proof that validates this claim must be consistent with the following:
1) God exists.
2) he is the God of the religion implied.
3) he has the power to do such, has a working method (which might/can be explained) and he can, if necessary, replicate such creation process before my very eyes.

There shouldn't be any room for faith or baseless assumptions. The burden of proof is

Martinez19:

LOL. Even though I expect nothing except unshakeable and irrefutable logic and sound reasoning which I would unfailingly spot (if and only if I am open minded) nevertheless, for this claim to be true, the following must be true or The proof that validates this claim must be consistent with the following:
1) God exists.

And this brings us back to the fundamental premise. What do you think evidence for this would be like? Your answer above is still ambiguous.

2) he is the God of the religion implied.

- How will this be determined?

- What if there is non implied?

3) he has the power to do such, has a working method (which might/can be explained) and he can, if necessary, replicate such creation process before my very eyes.

Now you come. Hahahahaha

Would you require a proof such as this to agree Leonardo Da Vinci painted Mona Lisa if Leonardo were to be alive today?

There shouldn't be any room for faith or baseless assumptions. The burden of proof is

There shouldn't be which is why I'm asking for predictions wee should expect met to substantiate the God theory.

felixomor:

Easy o.

This question is too hard for that young lad.

LOL.

Do you mind dabbling in. There is room for a theistic perspective.

What do you think should be a conclusive evidence for God?

Any prediction consistent with the idea of God as a cosmological reality that we could watch out for to either substantiate or falsify the idea?

Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God.

A deist God can not be proven or disproven in anyway because the God concept isn't well defined.

CAPSLOCKED:

THE ONLY THING I NEED IS FOR THE GOD TO SPEAK TO ALL OF US AT ONCE AND TELL US WHAT IT WANTS (THIS INCLUDES GENERATIONS OF UNBORN HUMANS) INSTEAD OF SPEAKING TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN A TRANCE WHICH HAS LED TO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS OF IT'S WORD AND INSTRUCTIONS.

IF IT'S REAL, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE CREATURES IT WANTS TO ATTRACT.

Lols...this is funny really




We really do need a strong evidence.

johnydon22:


And this brings us back to the fundamental premise. What do you think evidence for this would be like? Your answer above is still ambiguous.



- How will this be determined?

- What if there is non implied?

Now you come. Hahahahaha

Would you require a proof such as this to agree Leonardo Da Vinci painted Mona Lisa if Leonardo were to be alive today?

There shouldn't be which is why I'm asking for predictions wee should expect met to substantiate the God theory.

There is a difference between " be consistent with" and "you must also show". Don't confuse both. I also made it clear that I don't expect anything other than an unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical pathway from observational reality to one's idea of god. If I am going to expect anything other than that, it will depend on the positor's description and idea of god and if necessary, attributes as I would expect that god to live up to his attributes and description. No matter the idea and descriptions of god put forward, the proof of that god must not be devoid of unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical connections between my observable reality and the god postulated.

For any god one claims to serve or just believe in, one must fulfill the following for me to believe :
STEP 1: Clearly define and describe your god and, if necessary, it's attributes.
STEP 2: provide an unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical connection with observable reality and that of your god to support his existence.

Just like we need no one to tell us what is moral and not, I need no one to tell me that a proof is logically sound if and only if I am open minded.

dalaman:
Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God.

Ok like, parting the sea? Lol

A deist God can not be proven or disproven in anyway because the God concept isn't well defined.

Logically contingent.

But take for instance the idea that God is a necessary cause for the universe, do you think this idea is consistent with cosmology or observational physics?

Hakeem12:
Lols...this is funny really




We really do need a strong evidence.

Hahahahaha I tell you

Martinez19:
There is a difference between " be consistent with" and "you must also show". Don't confuse both. I also made it clear that I don't expect anything other than an unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical pathway from observational reality to one's idea of god. If I am going to expect anything other than that, it will depend on the positor's description and idea of god and if necessary, attributes as I would expect that god to live up to his attributes and description. No matter the idea and descriptions of god put forward, the proof of that god must not be devoid of unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical connections between my observable reality and the god postulated.

ok

For any god one claims to serve or just believe in, one must fulfill the following for me to believe :
STEP 1: Clearly define and describe your god and, if necessary, it's attributes.

let me try. I believe in the God Amadioha.

The God of thunder, lightening, justice and vengance. Amadioha has every storm in the universe running throw him and is a cause for lightening?

STEP 2: provide an unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical connection with observable reality and that of your god to support his existence.

Observable reality = Thunder and lightening

In concept = Justice and vengeance.

See?

Are these evidences? There are observable but are they really evidence?

Just like we need no one to tell us what is moral and not, I need no one to tell me that a proof is logically sound if and only if I am open minded.

I do not think this is so, we in fact learn majority of our moral outlook. Someone eventually told us what is moral or not.

johnydon22:


Ok like, parting the sea? Lol

Sure, a clear cut miracle in reality like the healing of an amputee, or baby born with down syndrome for examexample.

Logically contingent.

But take for instance the idea that God is a necessary cause for the universe, do you think this idea is consistent with cosmology or observational physics?

Yeah, its a possibility. There could be a creative force or forces responsible for the universe.

johnydon22:
ok


let me try. I believe in the God Amadioha.

The God of thunder, lightening, justice and vengance. Amadioha has every storm in the universe running throw him and is a cause for lightening?



Observable reality = Thunder and lightening

In concept = Justice and vengeance.

See?

Are these evidences? There are observable but are they really evidence?



I do not think this is so, we in fact learn majority of our moral outlook. Someone eventually told us what is moral or not.

There is no unshakeble, irrefutable and sound logical pathway from the observational reality you mentioned to Amadioha ie. there is nothing about the thunder, lightening and the concept of justice & vengeance that CONCLUSIVELY tells me that Amadioha, as described, exists. And your connection is not unshakeable if I ask if Amadioha can invoke thunder at any given and to any target (eg. hopefulLandlord ) to show that he is indeed the god of thunder. It takes a leap of faith and is a non sequitur to say the following :
1) thunder and lighting exists.
2) we have a concept of justice and vengeance.
3) given (1) & (2), amadioha exists.

It's like saying Francis Collins is correct to be a christian. We all know why he became a christian. Is your step 2 conclusive and consistent with the idea that amadioha confers justice and vengeance or is that the supposed vengeance is a coincidence which could have happened anyway given that some oppressors of amadioha worshippers go on to lead successful lives?

Martinez19:
There is no unshakeble, irrefutable and sound logical pathway from the observational reality you mentioned to Amadioha ie. there is nothing about the thunder, lightening and the concept of justice & vengeance that CONCLUSIVELY tells me that Amadioha, as described, exists. And your connection isn't not unshakeable if I ask if Amadioha can invoke thunder at any given and to any target (eg. hopefulLandlord ) to show that he is indeed the god of thunder.

Well you'd have to assume Amadioha wants to zap anybody with thunder

It takes a leap of faith and is a non sequitur to say the following :
1) thunder and lighting exists.
2) we have a concept of justice and vengeance.
3) given (1) & (2), amadioha exists.

3 comes before 1 and 2.

More like, Humanity exist because Big Bang.

It's like saying Francis Collins is correct to be a christian. We all know why he became a christian. Is your step 2 conclusive and consistent with the idea that amadioha confers justice and vengeance or is that the supposed vengeance is a coincidence which could have happened anyway given that some oppressors of amadioha worshippers go on to lead successful lives?

I don't understand this one

I wonder why there are no theists on this thread..

CAPSLOCKED:

THE ONLY THING I NEED IS FOR THE GOD TO SPEAK TO ALL OF US AT ONCE AND TELL US WHAT IT WANTS (THIS INCLUDES GENERATIONS OF UNBORN HUMANS) INSTEAD OF SPEAKING TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN A TRANCE WHICH HAS LED TO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS OF IT'S WORD AND INSTRUCTIONS.

IF IT'S REAL, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE CREATURES IT WANTS TO ATTRACT.

Supernatural events,in my view,do not definitely prove the existence of God,and I certainly do not see how hearing a voice banging from the skies addressing all humans would change that perception;to me it only proves the existence of the supernatural and ends here.This remains same whether these occurrences are limitations of our current scientific understanding or what science would never profer an explanation to.

It won't be inordinate imagining a scenario where we have a supernatural realm and supernatural beings with this question of the existence of God being much of a conundrum to them as it has been to us.