• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Show me the beef!

NWO_Spook said:
Until someone can demonstrate that this construct exists, then why would I believe in the existence of it in the first place? In light of that, any claim about his 'every move etc.' is utter gibberish to me.
Click to expand...

What makes you think you'd be able to recognize evidence of God if it were presented to you?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You need to ask yourself why is it you ask for evidence? what is the atheists motive in asking for evidence?

In my decades of experience it is this: the dishonest desire to reject whatever is presented to them, it's that simple, they want someone to go to the trouble of presenting something just so they can say "Nah, that's not evidence".
Click to expand...

Misrepresentation of atheists followed by a lame excuse not to present said evidence that you supposedly have. No one is impressed.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You'll soon realize that Watsup often completely misunderstands what people say to him.
Click to expand...

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."


5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education
 
watsup said:
Then tell us. Don't keep us in suspense.
Click to expand...

Your keeping yourself in suspense by having no idea what you'd do with any evidence I show to you, no idea what you'd look for, how you'd be able to tell it apart from something that isn't evidence.

I don't expect an answer because I don't expect honesty from most atheists.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Your keeping yourself in suspense by having no idea what you'd do with any evidence I show to you, no idea what you'd look for, how you'd be able to tell it apart from something that isn't evidence.

I don't expect an answer because I don't expect honesty from most atheists.
Click to expand...

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."

5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education
 
NWO_Spook said:
Now, now, calm down and try to offer a thoughtful reponse as opposed to an emotional outburst.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect anything different in response to you banal diatribe?
 
grip said:
Why would you expect anything different in response to you banal diatribe?
Click to expand...

Oh dear, it looks like someone doesn't know the meaning of the word (as well as your fan). I'm curious as to how you arrived at the term, 'diatribe', for it seems that you simply lost your composure because you couldn't handle answering a few questions.

You guys really crack me up. :lol:

Now, it's time for an English lesson:

Diatribe (n): a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.

My post:

1. As if you know anything at all about this god, because you don't. None of you know anything about this construct.

2. Why should I believe these stories just because you and others do? If this construct exists, then it should be able to demonstrate its existence, if it doesn't exist, its safe to assume that it won't (that was the core theme).

3. Until someone can demonstrate that this construct exists, then why would I believe in the existence of it in the first place? In light of that, any claim about his 'every move etc.' is utter gibberish to me.
Click to expand...

#1 is simply a statement of fact, and you cannot honestly deny it.

#2 is a question and a statement regarding a philosophical problem,

and #3 is a question followed by a statement pointing out the ridiculous nature of your response.

I hope that aids in your understanding.
 
Last edited:
watsup said:
Is the question as to "what evidence would you accept to show there is a God?" a valid one?
Click to expand...

It could be a valid question, with one or more simple answers:

"All of it" is one possible answer. I will accept all of the evidence that someone claims shows there is a god, I will evaluate it, and then determine if I'm convinced.

But if the question is really, what evidence would it take to convince me that there is a god, the answer is "I don't know, but if there's a god, surely it knows."
 
watsup said:
So you are saying that you accept God on faith alone. Well, at least that is honest, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...

That is God's expectation and we're supposed to believe on faith alone.

Those that need proof or need to prove God to others are those weak in faith.

They are also acting against God's Will in attempting it. None will succeed. There is no proof of God except perhaps personal perception.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Valery said:
I fear the one who actually names required evidences would not really believe regardless of evidence, seeing as evidence is all around us. What the faithless lack is not evidence. I don't know if the question is valid or not, but I do think it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

If the evidence really was all around us then what need would there be for faith? How does one have faith something is, when the evidence is there to tell them something is. If it is the faithless who do not lack evidence and theists have all that evidence around them. Kind of puts an ironic twist on your second statement.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Oh dear, it looks like someone doesn't know the meaning of the word (as well as your fan). I'm curious as to how you arrived at the term, 'diatribe', for it seems that you simply lost your composure because you couldn't handle answering a few questions.

You guys really crack me up. :lol:

Now, it's time for an English lesson:

Diatribe (n): a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.

My post:

#1 is simply a statement of fact, and you cannot honestly deny it.

#2 is a question and a statement regarding a philosophical problem,

and #3 is a question followed by a statement pointing out the ridiculous nature of your response.

I hope that aids in your understanding.
Click to expand...

You really have no idea how pompous, condescending and arrogant your tone is? I guess you're so impressed with yourself that it just slips out.

I like this definition of diatribe better.

A diatribe, also known less formally as rant, is a lengthy oration, though often reduced to writing, made in criticism of someone or something, often employing humor, sarcasm, and appeals to emotion.

I hope I've managed to enlighten you a bit. ;)

BTW, you still haven't answered my original query; 'What human on this board could possibly ever produce evidence of a god that doesn't want to be proven?'


Lursa said:
That is God's expectation and we're supposed to believe on faith alone.

Those that need proof or need to prove God to others are those weak in faith.

They are also acting against God's Will in attempting it. None will succeed. There is no proof of God except perhaps personal perception.
Click to expand...

Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Mark 16:15
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."
 
grip said:
Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Mark 16:15
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."
Click to expand...

Of course we are supposed to spread The Word, to share the Word of God.

What does that have to do with 'proof?'


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
soylentgreen said:
If the evidence really was all around us then what need would there be for faith? How does one have faith something is, when the evidence is there to tell them something is. If it is the faithless who do not lack evidence and theists have all that evidence around them. Kind of puts an ironic twist on your second statement.
Click to expand...
In time a person born may reject God, but from the beginning a person naturally believes. So yes, the evidence is there for everyone to see, but some people, at some point, reject faith and the evidence becomes meaningless to them because their hearts are not in a state to acknowledge the evidence.
 
watsup said:
One of our esteemed theistic chatters recently posted the following as basically a repeat of a post that he has made probably hundreds of times by now. Anyway, here it is. Please disregard the ad hom at the end:

"I disagree, if this is foundational to the question then it is for the atheist to ask for it but they do not, they ask for evidence yet do not seem to know what they are asking for, so why would someone adopt a position (atheism) that they don't understand?"

He most often makes the statement as this: "What evidence would you accept to show that there is a God?"


So I thought it would be fair to get some thoughts on whether this was a valid question and a valid way to proceed in a debate about whether there is a "God".

I always reply to him that evidence cannot be prejudged but must first be presented in order to make said judgement. So let's take a look at a definition:



ev·i·dence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

To me, the key word is "available". How do we know what is "available" until the person who states the proposition shows us?

Let's refer to a jury trial. The lawyers do not say in the jury selection room "what evidence will you accept". They know that they must present it prior to the jurist making a judgement. In fact, they ask how much the jurists know about the situation and whether they have made a pre-judgement, and if they have then they are removed from the jury pool.
Same with the judge. The lawyers do not ask the judge "what evidence would you accept". They present their evidence to the judge and THEN he makes the decision as to whether it will be accepted as valid in the trial.

Anyway, I'll open it up at this point. Is the question as to "what evidence would you accept to show there is a God?" a valid one?
Click to expand...

In a word, God.
 
Triton said:
There is the evidence which Sherlock has presented countless times, and it goes something like this "The universe exists, so it must have been created, and since it is illogical that a natural system can originate from a natural cause means that original cause must be supernatural, and such an entity would be a god, who is immune to scrutiny which we assign to natural entities, meaning it does not require a creator itself." I hope I'm not strawmanning him.

This is rationalistic evidence, and as such, it relies on reason - and not the interpretation of empirical data - to arrive at a conclusion. I think the place where Sherlock and I differ greatly is when sentience is also implied and that said god is the god described in Hebrew scripture. There are some leaps there which I don't find obvious, but I personally think it is reasonable to suggest that the natural was ultimately started by something supernatural, and that something supernatural, by definition, cannot be perceived through natural means. To be clear I do not construe this supernatural entity as being a god in the sense we tend to use the word.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, in post #4 both examples of evidence you gave were of a physical nature. A material object in a photograph or a shouting voice from the sky. Now the story is that evidence is rationalistic in nature. Evidence is just being able to give a convincing argument. (Which, btw, he did not do. )

If i have a bias here it would be that evidence and reason are two distinct and separate things. Actually having a rock in my hand is very different from me trying to convince someone i might have a rock in my hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom