What is the evidence for god?

Home Forums General & off-topic What is the evidence for god?

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #181613
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What is the evidence for god?

    • #181614
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I had gay sex with God he is real
      he cum in my ass then I cum in his ass and we suck each other prolapsed poopyhole juices
      you can’t prove this didn’t actually happen but I cannot prove it did happen as well
      it is a question of faith whether I had sex with God or not

    • #181616
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Contingency argument, revelations of God, incarnation etc.
      You can cope your way out of each piece of evidence by throwing hands up in the air because you don’t know how to analyze it from 3rd person but luckily that wasn’t the question.

      • #181620
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >revelations of God
        whats this mean, how do you prove that you had a revelation? seems like a pretty personal experience

        • #181625
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I don’t. It’s evidence for the person it was revealed to.

        • #181626
          Anonymous
          Guest

          How is that proof of god/gods

          Dude… just…. Don’t think about it

          The Holy Spirit reveals to us by our faith. When you trust in Jesus for salvation, the Holy spirit descends on you and provides new knowledge, revealing Himself. this experience is subtle or dramatic depending on how much faith you put into it. Most people have little faith, which is why the outcome is usually very subtle.

          the bible describes this process as a living thing, a seed. You seed your life with faith and it grows. After you gain experience you gain hope, and more hope creates more faith. It is the eternal well of living water.

          Most people turn against God because they blame God. I do the same thing when I stump my toe, and I say "god damn it". Though it was really me that stumped my toe, not God’s fault. This is why we say it is our nature to sin, and transgress God. Without faith we are dead, and our works are dead.

    • #181617
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I have yet to see any compelling measurable evidence for God.
      I personally believe our reality was willed into existence by an intelligent creator God, but I’m not thoroughly convinced of that proposition.

    • #181619
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is none. God is a delusion.

    • #181621
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The Holy Spirit. The fruits of which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…

      • #181622
        Anonymous
        Guest

        How is that proof of god/gods

        • #181623
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Dude… just…. Don’t think about it

    • #181624
      Anonymous
      Guest

      To deny God is to deny the natural sciences and the innate sense of morality in every person

      • #181627
        Anonymous
        Guest

        how so

        I don’t. It’s evidence for the person it was revealed to.

        seems pretty weak, what about "incarnation" are you saying there are confirmed cases of incarnation?

        • #181629
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >seems pretty weak
          Seeing something for yourself is weak?
          >what about "incarnation" are you saying there are confirmed cases of incarnation?
          Yes. There’s a book about it made up of 4 testimonies and a couple letters.

          • #181630
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Seeing something for yourself is weak?
            No trying to convince someone that they should just take you for your word is weak
            >Yes. There’s a book about it made up of 4 testimonies and a couple letters.
            No that is not reliable at all

            • #181631
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >trying to convince someone
              I’m not. That’s why I wrote "It’s evidence for the person it was revealed to."
              >No that is not reliable at all
              Okay.

              • #181633
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Can you explain why you find these testemonies to be believable? there are many other old books which make many other crazy claims, why not believe those?

                • #181635
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  It’s science. You conduct science to gain knowledge, then you can compute the data to understand it, and lastly but not leastly you can act upon your new understanding in wisdom. This is how practicing morality in your life works, and this comes from a belief that everything you do has a divine purpose, rather than just hap and circumstance, which is what atheism leads us to conclude.

                  When David killed Goliath, David knew that God was on His side and wouldn’t b e defeated, everyone else coward because of their lack of faith.

                  • #181638
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >It’s science
                    believing someone form an old book "just because" is not science. Again why take the word of the bible as truth but not the vedas or quran

                    • #181639
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >just because
                      Is this genuinely what you understood him saying?

                      • #181641
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes he did literally did not lay out any reasons to believe the testemonies. I mean i don’t blame him it is very difficult to prove what someone claimed thousands of years ago

                      • #181644
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        He described the process of gaining and applying knowledge, pretty much dumbing down the hermeneutical circle and you insist that that equates to "just because", that’s what you’re saying…?

                      • #181647
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        i asked him why i should believe the testemonies, he did not reply with any reason at all.

                      • #181648
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Okay, I believe I clearly pointed out why you mischaracterized his post. Respond as you wish.

                      • #181649
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What is reason to you? Is it not science?

                    • #181640
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Because I have experience in practicing the morality in the bible, the ten commandments and have found that they produce good works. As I explained earlier. The words of my bible are enough, complete, and not lacking.

                      see

                      The Holy Spirit. The fruits of which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…

                      […]

                      The Holy Spirit reveals to us by our faith. When you trust in Jesus for salvation, the Holy spirit descends on you and provides new knowledge, revealing Himself. this experience is subtle or dramatic depending on how much faith you put into it. Most people have little faith, which is why the outcome is usually very subtle.

                      the bible describes this process as a living thing, a seed. You seed your life with faith and it grows. After you gain experience you gain hope, and more hope creates more faith. It is the eternal well of living water.

                      Most people turn against God because they blame God. I do the same thing when I stump my toe, and I say "god damn it". Though it was really me that stumped my toe, not God’s fault. This is why we say it is our nature to sin, and transgress God. Without faith we are dead, and our works are dead.

                      • #181642
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >the morality in the bible, the ten commandments
                        You understand that this is not exclusive to the bible right?

                      • #181645
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Is he supposed to be bothered that other cultures discovered Truth? You give very knee jerk responses, Anon. If it’s all you throughout this thread.

                      • #181650
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes, I do understand this. What is your point?

                        Then why believe in the christian god specifically?

                      • #181651
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Because Jesus was fulfillment of the Old Testament. The ten commandments, the savior of Israel(Christ, Messiah). The cornerstone that they rejected.

                      • #181652
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You don’t believe in "christian God". You believe in God. And you use Christianity as an institution because it provides the best tools for that – the most developed theology, the most universal set of spiritual practices, the most precisely articulated set of propositions about God’s nature etc. Granted, if you reject too much you at some point are effectively unrelated to Christianity, but nobody is forcing you to believe every bit of every ecclesiastic document. They’re tools

                      • #181653
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You believe in God. And you use Christianity as an institution because it provides the best tools for that
                        but the gods of different religions are not the same at all? even the gods of the abrahamic religions are quite different

                      • #181655
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        God is one. What you’re comparing are his understandings. And you can even as an atheist differentiate superficial understandings from actually sophisticated models.

                      • #181658
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >God is one
                        why believe this?

                      • #181660
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Contingency argument elaborates on this fairly clearly. Plurality is contingent upon limitations. Things are multiple when there is an attribute they share with bigger or smaller exclusivity. The idea of God – defined as the source of our reality – is that he is not contingent, otherwise he would be creation, he would be our reality, requiring a source of his own. Thus, there is no plurality in the ultimate source, it is one God.

                      • #181646
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes, I do understand this. What is your point?

                • #181637
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  They check out one step at a time.
                  You try verifying if the historical setting and theological problems are narrated correctly and they are. That’s a basic filter for liars, nothing impressive. So you check if the theological teachings are actually consistent. And they are. That’s already pretty badass for Judaism which in my understanding has the most complex systemic lore of all religions. So then you try testing the teachings out. And they work. Which is mind-blowing in some cases and mind-numbing in others. You go one step at a time and try checking everything you can and at the end you’re faced with a question: is it true or is literally everything I checked true and literally everything I didn’t check false? And the more pragmatic answer (though not an answer skeptics admit using) is yeah, it’s viable that it’s true. I can’t say that I’m all the way through with all the verifiable steps one can take but I think I’ve gone some way and it’s been pretty convincing.

                  I likely won’t have the time nor the need to consult books with completely incompatible sets of claims, seeing that Christian theology already covers, incorporates and properly places 90% of extra-Christian theology within itself. But if you would feel so inclined, nothing is stopping you for performing the exact same thing for multiple books at once.

                • #181702
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  People have mystical experiences that cannot be explained away. This is personal wisdom, not within the domain of scientific wisdom. Deal with it.

    • #181628
      Anonymous
      Guest

      mommy milkies

    • #181632
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m God, hi.

    • #181634
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The goal of life is to find God, whom is hiding, asking for evidence is like asking for a cheatengine.

      • #181636
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >The goal of life is to find God
        How do you know this?
        >whom is hiding
        Why? Also how do you know this?

        • #181693
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I won :3

    • #181643
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Me.

    • #181654
      Anonymous
      Guest

      P1: If God exists, then God is a morally perfect being.
      P2: The world is morally imperfect now.
      P3: If God is a morally perfect being, then his actions cannot decrease the degree of moral perfection of the world.
      P4: If God is a morally perfect being, then prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect.
      P5: If prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect and the world is morally imperfect now, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world.
      C1: If God exists, then his actions cannot decrease the degree of moral perfection of the world. (P1, P3 Hypothetical Syllogism)
      C2: If God exists, then prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect. (P1 and P4 Hypothetical Syllogism)
      C3: If the world is morally imperfect now, then if prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world. (P5 Rule of Exportation)
      C4: If prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world. (P2, C3 Modus Ponens).
      C5: If God exists, then the actions of God has decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world. (C2, C4 Hypothetical Syllogism)
      C6: God does not exist (C1, C5 Negation Introduction)

      • #181656
        Anonymous
        Guest

        – God made a mistake
        – God repented of mistake
        – God became morally perfect.

        Repent and follow Him.

      • #181657
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >P3: If God is a morally perfect being, then his actions cannot decrease the degree of moral perfection of the world.
        Putting a limitation on God, wrong permise.
        >P4: If God is a morally perfect being, then prior to God creating anything the world was morally perfect.
        What world?

        • #181662
          Anonymous
          Guest

          That’s what it means to be morally perfect. If you want to deny that God is morally perfect then go for it.
          the state of affairs prior to creation

          • #181666
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >That’s what it means to be morally perfect.
            Not really but if this is the hill you choose to die on, then go ahead. People have misunderstood the ‘unlimited’ part of ‘unlimited deity’ in worse contexts, you’re still doing ok.

            • #181669
              Anonymous
              Guest

              if you think that the existence of gratuitous suffering isn’t contradictory with the existence of a morally perfect God then presumably you think that even if God sent every human being to hell for no reason there would be nothing contradictory about that with God being morally perfect.

              • #181671
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Pointlessness is question of framing. You’re trying to deduce metaphysical fundament of reality woke af on your opinion about a type of experienes (aka that some suffering is pointless).
                It is at once an argument from silence (I don’t see a point, hence pointless) and at once invalid breach to ontology (I think X therefore universe must be Y).

                • #181676
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I don’t know what point you’re making. If you’re saying that a morally perfect God could make a creation where beings suffer gratuitously (i.e. suffering that is not needed for or outweighed by any good ) then you’ve already yielded any meaningful concept of God being morally perfect.
                  saying that a morally perfect God could make humans suffer gratuitously means that it could be morally perfect for God to have made creation such that all humans are directly teleported into hell as soon as they come into existence and are tortured for a google years then snuffed out of existence with no afterlife.

                  • #181678
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >suffer gratuitously (i.e. suffering that is not needed for or outweighed by any good )
                    On what insights do you decide what suffering is justified and what is pointless? Try to answer this question and you will see my point. Your answer will be arbitrary and will change as you get older. You’re FRAMING some suffering as pointless. It isn’t pointless in and of itself.

            • #181670
              Anonymous
              Guest

              If you’re saying that an agent can be considered morally perfect even though his actions decrease the moral perfection of the world then by that standard humans committing acts of evil are also morally perfect.

      • #181659
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >then God is a morally perfect being.
        God is not a morally perfect being, see Gnosticism, done.

        • #181661
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Depends how you define morality, and I think only God can define that since he is God.

    • #181663
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Fuck, I just can’t unsee it…

    • #181664
      Anonymous
      Guest

      1. If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist.
      2. If God can’t increase the sum of the good by creating, then no suffering can be needed for or outweighed by any good.
      3. If no suffering can be needed for or outweighed by any good, then all suffering is gratuitous.
      4. God can’t increase the sum of the good by creating.
      5. No suffering can be needed for or outweighed by any good.
      6. Gratuitous suffering exists.
      7. God does not exist.

      • #181667
        Anonymous
        Guest

        How many equally fallacious versions of ‘if God real why bad thing happen’ will you produce?

      • #181673
        Anonymous
        Guest

        > If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist.
        Wrong, in fact God is afflicting humanity because He loves them. Spare the rod spoil the child.

        > If God can’t increase the sum of the good by creating, then no suffering can be needed for or outweighed by any good.
        Wrong, God doesn’t need humanity to be good, He only loves us and wants us to do good. You can’t force someone with free will to love or respect you. This is why most people reject God, because they hate God for afflicting them, like disobedient children.

        >Gratuitous suffering exists.
        Then why do you not repent?

        God exists, loves us and wants you to stop suffering.

        [2Co 4:8-10 KJV] 8 [We are] troubled on every side, yet not distressed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair; 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

        • #181677
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Spare the rod spoil the child.
          This implies the suffering is not gratuitous. spare the rod spoil the child means you inflict suffering on the child for the greater good of teaching the child good behaviour.
          premise one is talking about gratuitous suffering, which is not suffering done in order to bring about a greater good.

          >Wrong, God doesn’t need humanity to be good, He only loves us and wants us to do good. You can’t force someone with free will to love or respect you. This is why most people reject God, because they hate God for afflicting them, like disobedient children.

          This is a non-sequitur that doesn’t do anything to refute the premise you’re objecting to and makes it sound like you do not understand what the premise is saying.

          • #181679
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >premise one is talking about gratuitous suffering
            And it’s a premise reliant entirely upon your opinion. See an example:

            > New York is really garbage.
            > I am really awesome.
            > If God were morally perfect, he wouldn’t put a really awesome person into a really awesome place.
            > I’m in New York.
            > There is no God.
            >…
            > You guys don’t get it, New York being garbage is the PREMISE, you can’t doubt that.
            We can doubt it. It’s your opinion. It’s how you FRAME New York.

            • #181680
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Corr
              >…into a really garbage place.

            • #181682
              Anonymous
              Guest

              This is aquinas tier logic sis. Why isn’t it making sense for you?

              • #181685
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Aquinas can give pretty detailed accounts on every term he uses. I suspect the only account for pointless suffering is "I don’t see a point". And I think finally seeing a point is an experience everyone had at least once.

            • #181686
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I can’t see how your analogy accurately models the reasoning in the argument.

              premise 1 simply says:
              1. If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist.

              the justification for this premise is that God is meant to be morally perfect and a morally perfect being would only make beings suffer for some greater good.
              If you reject this premise then either you’re rejecting that God is morally perfect, in which case the argument succeeds, or you’re saying that God could be morally perfect and create gratuitous suffering , in which case you’re undermining and yielding the concept of being morally perfect because you’re saying that God could on a whim make all humans and every angel suffer in hell for eternity regardless of if they followed his commands or accepted Christ as their lord and saviour, and in that case the argument still succeeds because it shows how meaningless you have to make the idea of being "morally perfect" in order to claim that God is "morally perfect".

              • #181688
                Anonymous
                Guest

                How do you recognize if suffering is gratuitous?
                >If it serves no greater purpose
                Sure, that’s how you define it. How do you RECOGNIZE whether it fits that definition or not?

                • #181689
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  where does the argument require you to recognise it? it simply relies on the meaning of the phrase "gratuitous suffering" and proceeds from there.

                  • #181691
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    In point 6:
                    >>> 6. Gratuitous suffering exists.

                    • #181695
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      right , but the only thing required for you to recognise is that suffering exists, because the argument provides the reasoning why all suffering is gratuitous.

                      • #181698
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You’re trying to define your way to suffering gratuitously, evidence of that is that you cannot actually recognize which is gratuitous and which isn’t.
                        The argument conflates pointless suffering with suffering that could’ve been pointless, had the universe been set up differently. It’s invalid.

                        >>>It hurts when I work out. God wouldn’t allow pointless suffering.
                        >> It’s not pointless, it’s how your muscles let you know they’re strained and will grow.
                        … and here come your copes…
                        > Well if they DID communicate differently it would be pointless, so it’s pointless
                        > Well if God just made them grow automatically, it would be pointless, so it’s pointless
                        > ….

                        You’re trying to define your way out of a dead end.

                        and why are they morally imperfect? because their actions decreased the degree of moral perfection of the world, like God.

                        Because they didn’t know nor follow perfect morality. I wouldn’t really refer it to "moral perfection" because it’s a meaningless term whose sole pupose is being vague enough to allow you to navigate your dead ends.

                      • #181699
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        see :
                        3. If no suffering can be needed for or outweighed by any good, then all suffering is gratuitous.
                        4. God can’t increase the sum of the good by creating.
                        5. No suffering can be needed for or outweighed by any good.

                        God can’t increase the sum of the good by creating because God is morally perfect even before anything is created so the state of the world cannot be made better or "more perfect" by God creating anything.

                        this explains why all suffering is gratuitous so premise 6 only relies on you being able to recognise that suffering exists.

                      • #181700
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >God can’t
                        Wrong.
                        >God is morally perfect even before anything is created so the state of the world cannot be made better or "more perfect" by God creating anything.
                        Only true if you measure average or maximum or minimum or whatever other misleading aggregate measure of ‘good’ as a property. If you measure it as a sum, you’re wrong. Do you have a basis for those aggregate evaluations of good? You don’t. You just felt it fit your argument.
                        Exactly like you ‘felt’ that suffering being potentially pointless makes it actually pointless.

                        Your argument is not valid neither in its parts nor as a whole.

          • #181701
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >This implies the suffering is not gratuitous
            wrong again friendo, the suffering only continues gratuitously for eternity, for as long as you reject Him until you repent. Why I find the old saying getting old is not for sissies is a great way to instill a sense of urgency for the now, and why you don’t want to wait to get saved and to build a strong relationship with Jesus before it is too late.

    • #181665
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Which one of them?

    • #181668
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Literally look around you

    • #181684
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It depends on your definition of "God".
      Nowadays, "God" has so many different concepts that such a question has become utterly irrelevant.

    • #181692
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >I believe there’s some higher being out there
      >But I also believe all religions on earth (at least the major ones) are manmade
      What am I?

      • #181694
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Nothing in particular. Religions are social institutions, it’s obvious they are man-constructed. That’s often the very point. Did you perhaps mean that no religion has access to any facet of the higher being? That would be actually controversial.

      • #181697
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Deist

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id