chairman bill wrote:Some of you aren't taking this Tooth Fairy thing seriously. Well don't blame me if she stops leaving you a silver sixpence when one of your teeth falls out. Once your tooth has gone, there's no going back. The Tooth Fairy comes like a thief in the night, and if you lack faith, and there's no tooth under your pillow, well hard luck. When it's happend two or three times, you'll be wailing & gnashing those teeth. It's all written down you know.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do take the Tooth Fairy thing seriously. More seriously than words can express. I'll be the first to admit that the reason I don't believe it exists is because I'm afraid of what it might mean for me if it DOES exist. For example, if I say I believe in the Tooth Fairy, does that mean that I'll have to do everything that the Tooth Fairy tells me to do? For example, what if the Tooth Fairy asks me to take off all my clothes and disrespect myself? Is the Tooth Fairy a harsh taskmaster or is the Tooth Fairy strict but kind? If it's the latter, I might consider believing in her. How will I know if she is calling me and/or if I am worthy enough to be one of her followers? Should I be listening for a voice inside my head? A tug on my conscience? A feeling of insatiable longing? The sensation of butterflies in my stomach? Or all of the above? Please advise.

P.S. I understand why you felt the need to warn people here about the existence of the Tooth Fairy and the consequences of failure to believe. If people here reject the Tooth Fairy, then you can rest easy knowing that you won't have our blood on your hands.

IIzO wrote:

3) What if he has already given us enough evidence, but we're looking at the wrong place?

reeks of confirmation bias , but heh you tell me what to look for and what place and its done .Petty rethorics are useless.

As to WHERE we should look....

Since the arguments of Christian apologists seem to be pulled largely right out of their arses, I think that gives us a clue as to where we're supposed to look for our own "evidence."

But I just had my suppository! I'm not even ready for a sermon!

MattHunX wrote:

thedistillers wrote:

Mr P wrote:Actually in answer to your question, if a supreme being exists then there's no obligation for it to provide evidence of itself. By that same reasoning then there's no obligation on me to have faith.

Indeed! It seems like you have understood Christianity; you are under no obligation to have faith, you can freely reject the Spirit and His call.

Oh, how nice!

I can just "freely reject the Spirit and His call" and I'm " under no obligation to have faith", except that if I don't, I'll burn in Hell, and children are being "taught" the same. But, it's good to know they can choose to not accept it without any serious repercussions.

I think I have asked this question before, but is thedistillers from a denomination where they don't include the concept of hell in the whole story. Cherry-picker alert!

I love it when Christians say, "You are free to reject his call." How can Christians expect people to take this sort of "argumentation" seriously? How is this any different than a schizophrenic telling sane people that they are free to reject the voices they hear in their heads? What rational response can possibly be given to this sort of claim? You can tell the schizophrenic that the voices that he hears in his head are a delusion and a sign of mental illness, but will he believe you? Is he, in his current state, even capable of believing you?

josephchoi wrote:But I just had my suppository! I'm not even ready for a sermon!

Moonwatcher wrote:

Seth wrote:
They are evidence. It's called "documentary evidence." Now, whether it's critically robust and verifiable evidence is another matter entirely.

So how about doing it today instead of in a book thousands of years ago that no rational person would believe because its contrary to every scrap of evidence our entire lives?

Dunno. You'd have to ask Him. Maybe he just enjoys fucking with atheist's heads.

Maybe he just doesn't want to do it for your edification. He is God, after all, and he's not required to meet your expectations, now is he?

Ah, so really, he doesn't care about me. Got it.

Where did you get the silly idea that God cares about you? Moreover, why do you think that whether or not God cares about you has anything whatever to do with whether he actually exists?

He doesn't give evidence the way he did in the Bible anymore. Oh how wonderfully convenient.

Isn't it just?

So he's changed his entire MO yet again has he? He's a personal god except when he's aloof and could care less when a simple display of real evidence would make all the difference. So he says he wants to *save* everybody but he really doesn't. He just can't be bothered. Got it. Next circular justification for his complete list of non-actions please.

Well, I really don't know what his motivations may be. The point is that one cannot rationally use the lack of contemporary supernatural manifestations (though Catholics and others would disagree that no such manifestations have occurred) by a putatively knowing intelligence as any sort of evidence that the entity does not exist. This is because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saying that Natalie Portman does not exist merely because she doesn't appear in my living room for a date is not rational.

That's the difficulty with the sort of argument you present, you see. It may be that God does not exist, or it may be that he does exist and is simply shy about revealing himself to deniers, or it may be that he exists and his attentions are merely elsewhere at the moment, or it may be that he did exist at one time, but no longer exists, or it may be that he once existed in this universe, but has relocated to another universe.

So, you can complain all you like about God's not manifesting himself to you or to science, but that lack of manifestation proves nothing about God either way. The best that science can say is "not proven." Anything else constitutes a belief about God, nothing more.

Moonwatcher wrote:

Seth wrote:
Shakespere plays and Harry Potter books are documentary evidence. Of what, is the question?

That it's anecdotal does not make it not-evidence, it merely goes to the probative value of the evidence.

Who are you to tell God what to do? And why should God provide evidence for His existence just to satisfy your curiosity (to restate the OP).

How about just manipulate matter according to the laws of physics...that we don't understand yet?

Besides, what makes you think he wants you as a believer?

So, are you doing an actual fundamentalist argument ehre or a parody of a fundamentalist argument? There's really no way to tell the difference.

Well, there's your problem right there, Sparky! You see, I'm making a logical argument, not a fundamentalist one.

The thing is, god is presented as a perfect being. In the past, he was more than willing to make extravagant displays of his power. For him to change that behavior negates his perfection.

Seth wrote:
That's the difficulty with the sort of argument you present, you see. It may be that God does not exist, or it may be that he does exist and is simply shy about revealing himself to deniers, or it may be that he exists and his attentions are merely elsewhere at the moment, or it may be that he did exist at one time, but no longer exists, or it may be that he once existed in this universe, but has relocated to another universe.

So, you can complain all you like about God's not manifesting himself to you or to science, but that lack of manifestation proves nothing about God either way. The best that science can say is "not proven." Anything else constitutes a belief about God, nothing more.

That sort of argument works as long as we aren't defining anything about what we mean by "God". But since the OP clearly means the Christian god, we have plenty of evidence that alleged actions in history did not happen. Now you could again take the sophist approach and say that maybe he intentionally erased his tracks because, while wanting everyone to be saved, he really wants them to all not believe in him and in fact really wants them to falsely accept all sorts of things because he planted the false evidence while removing the real evidence.

There's a point where you just laugh because its no longer anything but a lesson in convoluted "logic". Any semblance to any "God" that anybody actually believes in even remotely is long left behind and all you've done is illustrate that "God" is every bit as provable and unprovable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and about as relevant.

Seth wrote:
Well, there's your problem right there, Sparky! You see, I'm making a logical argument, not a fundamentalist one.

No your argument is not logical. It sidesteps the whole issue of the specific claims of the OP and of the specific god he is talking about. And its a mere sophist argument, the sort made by people who want to sound clever while making no substansive point whatsoever. "Its an invisible, insubstantial, silent god who actually is different than everything the source book about him which he allegedly inspired says and a completely different entity than what the thread is discussing. Oh, I am soooo clever."

Seth wrote:...but that lack of manifestation proves nothing about God either way.

The instruction manual for God states quite clearly that he should manifest if asked.

Matthew 7:7 (NKJV) "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

The point Seth's Devil's/God's advocate misses, is that atheist generally don't deny that god could exist (or have existed). We just find it extremely unlikely given we haven't seen any verifiable evidence for it. But the religious choose to believe that he does exist (in his immaterial way???) based on absolutely zero evidence. So there's no point saying to an atheist, 'yeah, but the bible could have some shred of truth in it'. We already acknowledge that. It could. This argument shouldn't have anything to do with Atheists. It should be all about the religious who have totally unfounded beliefs.

rEvolutionist wrote:The point Seth's Devil's/God's advocate misses, is that atheist generally don't deny that god could exist (or have existed). We just find it extremely unlikely given we haven't seen any verifiable evidence for it. But the religious choose to believe that he does exist (in his immaterial way???) based on absolutely zero evidence. So there's no point saying to an atheist, 'yeah, but the bible could have some shred of truth in it'. We already acknowledge that. It could. This argument shouldn't have anything to do with Atheists. It should be all about the religious who have totally unfounded beliefs.

Exactly. The theist tends to ask, "How can you not believe in something just because there isn't a scrap of evidence for it and the only reason I believe it is because Mom and Dad said it was true when I was five?" [Okay they wouldn't phrase it like that but...]

It should be the other way. "Why do you believe something that there isn't any evidence for?"

Of course what you'll get back is something like, "Look at the structure of the universe. Look at a flower. What more evidence do you need that the mythical god I was brought up to believe in is true?"

Yes and he'd be saying the same thing if the mythical god he was brought up to believe in was Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's the problem with asserting things that have no basis in evidence. You can assert anything with equal validity which is to say no validity.

Moonwatcher wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:The point Seth's Devil's/God's advocate misses, is that atheist generally don't deny that god could exist (or have existed). We just find it extremely unlikely given we haven't seen any verifiable evidence for it. But the religious choose to believe that he does exist (in his immaterial way???) based on absolutely zero evidence. So there's no point saying to an atheist, 'yeah, but the bible could have some shred of truth in it'. We already acknowledge that. It could. This argument shouldn't have anything to do with Atheists. It should be all about the religious who have totally unfounded beliefs.

Exactly. The theist tends to ask, "How can you not believe in something just because there isn't a scrap of evidence for it and the only reason I believe it is because Mom and Dad said it was true when I was five?" [Okay they wouldn't phrase it like that but...]

It should be the other way. "Why do you believe something that there isn't any evidence for?"

Of course what you'll get back is something like, "Look at the structure of the universe. Look at a flower. What more evidence do you need that the mythical god I was brought up to believe in is true?"

Yes and he'd be saying the same thing if the mythical god he was brought up to believe in was Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's the problem with asserting things that have no basis in evidence. You can assert anything with equal validity which is to say no validity.

Yep, like the tooth-fairy example that has been tossed about for the last few pages. WHY DON'T christians believe in the Tooth-Fairy and Santa Claus? I believe they also have mythologies. Why is their mythology not valid, while God's is? It is as you say, their parents and/or society told them to believe, and that is what they did.

Sciwoman wrote:The thing is, god is presented as a perfect being. In the past, he was more than willing to make extravagant displays of his power. For him to change that behavior negates his perfection.

Illogical. His willingness to display his power has nothing whatever to do with his factual perfection. It falsely assumes that his perfection exists for the purposes of display and it ignores his free will.

Moonwatcher wrote:

Seth wrote:
Well, there's your problem right there, Sparky! You see, I'm making a logical argument, not a fundamentalist one.

And its a mere sophist argument, the sort made by people who want to sound clever while making no substansive point whatsoever.

Actually, it's about critical examinations of your logic in the Socratic mode. By revealing the weaknesses in your arguments, I (hopefully) strengthen your own reasoning. Doesn't always work though, sadly.

"Its an invisible, insubstantial, silent god who actually is different than everything the source book about him which he allegedly inspired says and a completely different entity than what the thread is discussing. Oh, I am soooo clever."

Well, here at the three questions of the OP:

1) What kind of evidence should we look for, considering what we're talking about? (an immaterial entity)

2) If God does exist, why should He be under the obligation to provide the kind of evidence of the Church of Evidentialist members expect?

3) What if he has already given us enough evidence, but we're looking at the wrong place?

I am directly addressing points 2 and 3 by illuminating failures in your arguments. If you think it's sophistry, you should look to your arguments, since that's where it's coming from.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:The point Seth's Devil's/God's advocate misses, is that atheist generally don't deny that god could exist (or have existed). We just find it extremely unlikely given we haven't seen any verifiable evidence for it. But the religious choose to believe that he does exist (in his immaterial way???) based on absolutely zero evidence. So there's no point saying to an atheist, 'yeah, but the bible could have some shred of truth in it'. We already acknowledge that. It could. This argument shouldn't have anything to do with Atheists. It should be all about the religious who have totally unfounded beliefs.

Exactly. The theist tends to ask, "How can you not believe in something just because there isn't a scrap of evidence for it and the only reason I believe it is because Mom and Dad said it was true when I was five?" [Okay they wouldn't phrase it like that but...]

It should be the other way. "Why do you believe something that there isn't any evidence for?"

Of course what you'll get back is something like, "Look at the structure of the universe. Look at a flower. What more evidence do you need that the mythical god I was brought up to believe in is true?"

Yes and he'd be saying the same thing if the mythical god he was brought up to believe in was Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's the problem with asserting things that have no basis in evidence. You can assert anything with equal validity which is to say no validity.

Yep, like the tooth-fairy example that has been tossed about for the last few pages. WHY DON'T christians believe in the Tooth-Fairy and Santa Claus? I believe they also have mythologies. Why is their mythology not valid, while God's is? It is as you say, their parents and/or society told them to believe, and that is what they did.

Or, they are having personal experiences with God, but not with the Tooth-Fairy or Santa Claus, that you are not privy to or may be incapable of understanding due to some genetic difference that makes you unable to experience what they are experiencing.

Seth wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:The point Seth's Devil's/God's advocate misses, is that atheist generally don't deny that god could exist (or have existed). We just find it extremely unlikely given we haven't seen any verifiable evidence for it. But the religious choose to believe that he does exist (in his immaterial way???) based on absolutely zero evidence. So there's no point saying to an atheist, 'yeah, but the bible could have some shred of truth in it'. We already acknowledge that. It could. This argument shouldn't have anything to do with Atheists. It should be all about the religious who have totally unfounded beliefs.

Exactly. The theist tends to ask, "How can you not believe in something just because there isn't a scrap of evidence for it and the only reason I believe it is because Mom and Dad said it was true when I was five?" [Okay they wouldn't phrase it like that but...]

It should be the other way. "Why do you believe something that there isn't any evidence for?"

Of course what you'll get back is something like, "Look at the structure of the universe. Look at a flower. What more evidence do you need that the mythical god I was brought up to believe in is true?"

Yes and he'd be saying the same thing if the mythical god he was brought up to believe in was Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's the problem with asserting things that have no basis in evidence. You can assert anything with equal validity which is to say no validity.

Yep, like the tooth-fairy example that has been tossed about for the last few pages. WHY DON'T christians believe in the Tooth-Fairy and Santa Claus? I believe they also have mythologies. Why is their mythology not valid, while God's is? It is as you say, their parents and/or society told them to believe, and that is what they did.

Or, they are having personal experiences with God, but not with the Tooth-Fairy or Santa Claus, that you are not privy to or may be incapable of understanding due to some genetic difference that makes you unable to experience what they are experiencing.

Well there's a couple of problems here (although, once again, none of them prove that god doesn't exist - nor is that most atheists goal). 1. Personal god experiences: perfectly explained by current physical and chemical laws. There is no need to invent a god to explain the need for spirituality and/or hearing voices. 2. I doubt that it is genetic, given that some people believe and then stop believing, and some people don't believe and then start believing.

Seth wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Yep, like the tooth-fairy example that has been tossed about for the last few pages. WHY DON'T christians believe in the Tooth-Fairy and Santa Claus? I believe they also have mythologies. Why is their mythology not valid, while God's is? It is as you say, their parents and/or society told them to believe, and that is what they did.

Or, they are having personal experiences with God, but not with the Tooth-Fairy or Santa Claus, that you are not privy to or may be incapable of understanding due to some genetic difference that makes you unable to experience what they are experiencing.

It's possible. It's also possible that I'm going to win $AUD 30m in a couple of days. I've even bought a lottery ticket, to increase the odds from zero in 45 million to one in 45 million. I'm not holding my breath.

irreligionist wrote:

Seth wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
Yep, like the tooth-fairy example that has been tossed about for the last few pages. WHY DON'T christians believe in the Tooth-Fairy and Santa Claus? I believe they also have mythologies. Why is their mythology not valid, while God's is? It is as you say, their parents and/or society told them to believe, and that is what they did.

Or, they are having personal experiences with God, but not with the Tooth-Fairy or Santa Claus, that you are not privy to or may be incapable of understanding due to some genetic difference that makes you unable to experience what they are experiencing.

It's possible. It's also possible that I'm going to win $AUD 30m in a couple of days. I've even bought a lottery ticket, to increase the odds from zero in 45 million to one in 45 million. I'm not holding my breath.

Have you thought of praying....