Do God/s exist? Probably not.

Still no proof or even evidence for any god/s. Not surprising really.

or even evidence

Might as well start off with an untruth I guess.

Might as well start off with an untruth I guess.

If you disagree, then produce the evidence for review.

We've been through this. You declare there is "no evidence." I point at evidence and you respond with "there is no empirical evidence." The goalposts keep moving. It's a waste.

We've been through this. You declare there is "no evidence." I point at evidence and you respond with "there is no empirical evidence." The goalposts keep moving. It's a waste.

Do you understand what constitutes evidence? Do I really need to explain that every time I use the term "evidence?" So again, if you disagree, then produce the evidence for review.

I point at evidence

Out of curiosity, what did you point at?

I was going to ask the same question until I saw your post.

I suspect the evidence will not be something that would be formally verifiable.   Something akin to all the people who have testified to have a relationship with God;  a relationship that they claim exists but cannot substantiate with real evidence.

Something akin to all the people who have testified to have a relationship with God;  a relationship that they claim exists but cannot substantiate with real evidence.

Such claims are also subjective and anecdotal. There is nothing objective to collaborate or verify such claims, much less claims for the existence of god/s. At best, they go by mere feelings.

I was going to ask the same question until I saw your post.

I'm still waiting for evidence which makes my statement untrue. I'm having doubts I'll get any.

I suspect the evidence will not be something that would be formally verifiable

And you'd be right. But that standard is arbitrary at best. I would say it's even false and inappropriate.

Suppose we could measure the atomic weight of God's beard? We'd still have a pointless debate about whether it was a real beard or whether it really belonged to God.

Something akin to all the people who have testified to have a relationship with God

Maybe they have. Who are you to say?

but cannot substantiate with real evidence

It's your personal choice to decide that other people's experiences don't "qualify" as evidence. That's fine for you. For others, it's compelling evidence. You don't get to say for all people and for all time that this or that type of evidence is "real."

I'm still waiting for evidence which makes my statement untrue.

God himself could appear and raise your own great grandparents from the dead. You still wouldn't consider that proof of God.

And you'd be right. But that standard is arbitrary at best.

We can always use the scientific method.   

Maybe they have. Who are you to say?

I do not say.   I ask for evidence.   If none is provided, I am not convinced.

It's your personal choice to decide that other people's experiences don't "qualify" as evidence. That's fine for you. For others, it's compelling evidence. You don't get to say for all people and for all time that this or that type of evidence is "real."

Will you please cease trying to make this personal Tacos!.   I have made no such demands and have never stated that I am in charge of what qualifies as evidence.   Debate the logic, rather than try to portray me in an ugly light.

We have a very well established standard for evidence that already exists.   It is routinely proposes as the means for validating evidence of God.   The scientific method is the obvious choice.   If someone can put forth evidence that can be verified using the most common method we have of verifying truth then that seems to me to be reasonable.

What is not reasonable is to simply accept someone's word.   My example of alien abduction should make it clear why that is not quality evidence.

God himself could appear and raise your own great grandparents from the dead. You still wouldn't consider that proof of God.

Now that is an example of evidence.   It is not conclusive evidence for a supreme entity who created everything, but it certainly would be impressive in support of that claim.   It would, however, be great evidence of the claim that the entity can create living human individuals.

I point at evidence

Where?

The goalposts keep moving

The goalposts, as specified in his post is "any objective, empirical evidence or proof".

It's a waste.

Well it's a waste for you to spend any time or effort attempting to prove something with absolutely zero evidence.

There are folk who claim to have been spoken to by God, there are those who claim they are prophets and some who claim to have been to heaven and returned. There are also people who claim they were abducted by aliens. None of them have any evidence, not a hair, not a smidgen, not an atom of empirical proof of anything supernatural. An entire universe full of "super natural" but not a whiff of "supernatural".

So yes, you should stop wasting anyone else's time with spurious proclamations like "I point at evidence" when you're clearly standing there pointing at nothing but thin air.

God himself could appear and raise your own great grandparents from the dead. You still wouldn't consider that proof of God.

That doesn't actually address my statement. However, that would be compelling evidence. Although, it does not establish certainty of a god. It's still supports the notion of a god or god's supposed abilities. So that raises the credibility of claims regarding a god.

And you'd be right. But that standard is arbitrary at best. I would say it's even false and inappropriate.

Which is why such "evidence" and the claims based on it, is suspect at best. 

Maybe they have.

People can and do claim all sorts of things, including outrageous ones. But they offer nothing to support those claims.

Who are you to say?

Someone who is not convinced nor accepts such claims without evidence.

It's your personal choice to decide that other people's experiences don't "qualify" as evidence. That's fine for you.

Actual, valid evidence is not based on personal preference. It's based on what is objectively empirical, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable. 

For others, it's compelling evidence.

Which means it's nothing more than a personal feeling or confirmation bias. Subjective and anecdotal at best.

You don't get to say for all people and for all time that this or that type of evidence is "real."

The scientific method is good for establishing that. Just because some people think it's "real" doesn't make it so by default. Neither should such claims be accepted outright or as fact without question or evidence.

However, that would be compelling evidence. Although, it does not establish certainty of a god.

Exactly. That’s my point. You cannot even say that the best evidence I could imagine would be sufficient for you. This is not to say this is your fault. It is what it is. You do not know how to prove God does or does not exist. That is fundamental. If you cannot design a valid experiment or standard of proof, you can’t judge proposed evidence.

We see, therefore, how invalid your (or anyone else’s) criticisms are of the evidence other people are willing to accept. It’s pointless to demand evidence - of any kind - when clearly no level of evidence could ever possibly be acceptable to you.

To sum up and restate: you cannot judge evidence as invalid if you cannot say what evidence would be sufficient. It is useless, as well, to say “empirical evidence” or “verifiable evidence” if you cannot define how such evidence could be verified.

TiG, Gordy, and others rely on the scientific method.  In the scientific method, strictly speaking, nothing is ever proven 100%.  So, no, the existence of a god or gods would never be considered to be proven without a doubt.  It would be either strongly supported, weakly supported, or not supported, depending on the evidence presented.  A lack of evidence necessarily translates into a lack of support.

In the scientific method, strictly speaking, nothing is ever proven 100%

That’s fine. Pick your percentage, then. 99%? 90%? It’s up to you. Then you have to figure out how to design an experiment that will meet that standard.

You also have to demonstrate that your experiment will reveal what you claim it reveals. For example, anyone can go through some exercise or collect various data, but it doesn’t lead to an inexorable conclusion just because someone claims it does.

Only then can we even begin to speak of satisfactory evidence.

In the meantime, if others say they are satisfied, who are you, or Gordy, or TiG - or anyone else - to say they are wrong?

Exactly. That’s my point. You cannot even say that the best evidence I could imagine would be sufficient for you.

Do you consider the sheer magnitude of the claim you are seeking to support with evidence?

You are, in effect, attempting to provide convincing evidence of a sentient creator of everything with impressive characteristics which include:

• omnipotence
• omniscience
• omnipresence
• omnibenevolence
• perfection
• singular
• eternal

You offer the hypothetical evidence of:

Tacos!@1.1.9 ☞ God himself could appear and raise your own great grandparents from the dead. You still wouldn't consider that proof of God.

That certainly would evidence an ability to reanimate dead tissue (and to recreate the decayed parts including the contents of the brain).   That would be incredibly impressive and —as I noted in one of my comments— would be in support of a claim of being able to create a human being.   But that is quite a big difference from the grand claim of being the sentient creator of everything with the aforementioned characteristics (especially omniscience).

So your hypothetical evidence would fall very short of the grand claim.

It’s pointless to demand evidence - of any kind - when clearly no level of evidence could ever possibly be acceptable to you.

There is no level of evidence that would be acceptable to Gordy?   That might be true, but I missed where Gordy stated that.

To sum up and restate: you cannot judge evidence as invalid if you cannot say what evidence would be sufficient.

Is this your rule?   Seems to me that Gordy might tell you that he just does not know what would convince him of such a grand claim.   He could suggest to you that he is open to being convinced even if he is not sure what would do the trick.   He might even argue that if God wants to convince him then surely God is smart enough to figure out a way to do so.   

It is useless, as well, to say “empirical evidence” or “verifiable evidence” if you cannot define how such evidence could be verified.

Well I think you are taking on too difficult a task.   I doubt any mere human being is capable of delivering persuasive evidence that a sentient creator of everything exists with the aforementioned properties.   That is an amazingly tall order.

The question I would ask, considering this, is what makes a human being believe this particular entity must exist?   What is the evidence that believers find persuasive to believe in such a grandiose sentient entity?

That’s my point. You cannot even say that the best evidence I could imagine would be sufficient for you.

I acknowledged that it would be acceptable evidence. I said it does not conclusively prove there's a god. Big difference.

You do not know how to prove God does or does not exist. That is fundamental.

First, establishing proof of any kind would require solid evidence, of which there is none whatsoever for any god/s. Second, one cannot prove the non-existence of something. The burden of proof lies on those making the affirmative claim.

If you cannot design a valid experiment or standard of proof, you can’t judge proposed evidence.

That "standard of proof" is best determined by the scientific method. Not by someone's "feelings" or mere beliefs.

It’s pointless to demand evidence - of any kind - when clearly no level of evidence could ever possibly be acceptable to you.

Incorrect. I have said in the past that objective, empirical evidence is acceptable. What's pointless is merely accepting anything anyone claims, usually based on nothing more than a feeling or emotion. Would you blindly accept a person's claim, especially if it was more extraordinary like god? The scientific method is the best means to establish the validity of such claims. Just because someone makes a claim about something doesn't make that claim fact.

To sum up and restate: you cannot judge evidence as invalid if you cannot say what evidence would be sufficient. It is useless, as well, to say “empirical evidence” or “verifiable evidence” if you cannot define how such evidence could be verified.

I already cited the scientific method. I can't make it any clearer than that.

You also have to demonstrate that your experiment will reveal what you claim it reveals. For example, anyone can go through some exercise or collect various data, but it doesn’t lead to an inexorable conclusion just because someone claims it does.

Indeed!   Now read my comment @1.1.17 because that is one of my points.   The grander the claim (or hypothesis) the more challenging it is to evidence.

In the meantime, if others say they are satisfied, who are you, or Gordy, or TiG - or anyone else - to say they are wrong?

Depends on the claim.

The question I would ask, considering this, is what makes a human being believe this particular entity must exist?   What is the evidence that believers find persuasive to believe in such a grandiose sentient entity?

You are, of course, free to ask anything you like. However, it is disingenuous and unfair to argue that evidence if you can’t define what evidence would be acceptable. And as you have already indicated, that is likely undefinable.

In the meantime, if others say they are satisfied, who are you, or Gordy, or TiG - or anyone else - to say they are wrong?

Logical beings.  If I told you I was typing this while sitting sidesaddle on a unicorn, riding through an enchanted forest (with WiFi, even!) made of crystals, on the way to spend the night with my fairy godmother in her castle, who are you to naysay me?  Or would I need rather more evidence than "because I say so" to be taken seriously?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  In the lack of evidence, rational people doubt.

However, it is disingenuous and unfair to argue that evidence if you can’t define what evidence would be acceptable. And as you have already indicated, that is likely undefinable.

The scientific method has been proposed as the means for qualifying evidence against the claim of the existence of a god.   The approach would be to first define the god so that we all know what we are talking about.    Then the task is to provide evidence that is sound by modern protocol of the scientific method and correlates with the definition of said god.

What is the definition of god and what supporting evidence can you offer per the above?  

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  In the lack of evidence, rational people doubt.

Indeed. It's about what people claim vs. what can they demonstrate via evidence or ideally (but not likely prove). Mere claims is not evidence of anything and logically should not be accepted as such.

To sum up and restate: you cannot judge evidence as invalid if you cannot say what evidence would be sufficient. It is useless, as well, to say “empirical evidence” or “verifiable evidence” if you cannot define how such evidence could be verified.

Pretty good summation. But further, their goal is less about what would constitute evidence and more about insisting on the arena for said evidence. That is, the scientific method. All their faith is in the scientific method, which is why they keep going on and on about it, even though they'll tell you all day long that the scientific method cannot even address the question of the supernatural. Rather circular when you think about it. Science can't address God but won't believe God exists except through science. 

Logical beings.

Just because you believe you are right, that doesn't prove that you are more logical than anyone else.

who are you to naysay me?

In that situation, I am someone who - like anyone - has access to extensive data on the surface of the Earth, its flora, fauna, and geology. It is simple, using this data to demonstrate that the enchanted crystal forest doesn't exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Not always. "The Earth is round" is a pretty extraordinary claim, but all you have to do is look at it to see that it's true.

And anyway, as I have said, you have to define what you mean by "extraordinary evidence." You can't just keep saying "that's not good enough." You have to say what would be good enough or there is no justification for rejecting any evidence that comes your way.

Then the task is to provide evidence that is sound

You're just restating the same failing using a different word. Empirical evidence, verifiable evidence, and now sound evidence. It's all the same problem with a different label.

what supporting evidence can you offer per the above?  

You are the person who wants to be convinced. I can't keep trying evidence, hoping that one day you'll decide it's good enough. What a waste of time! And how thoroughly unscientific, to boot.

I have said it over and over. For believers, whatever evidence they have seen and considered, it is enough for them. You have no grounds for telling other people their beliefs are wrong and they don't owe you anything in terms of proof.

You have to decide what would be enough for you. Until you can define it, you have no business arguing it.

Rather circular when you think about it. Science can't address God but won't believe God exists except through science.

Exactly correct. Well stated.

Pretty good summation. But further, their goal is less about what would constitute evidence and more about insisting on the arena for said evidence. That is, the scientific method.

Propose an alternative that produces similar levels of verifiable, quality results.

All their faith is in the scientific method, ...

Why use the word 'faith' when you know that is a complete misrepresentation?   This is not new to you.   It is not faith in the scientific method but rather confidence based on the verifiable results it has produced and the accuracy of same.

... which is why they keep going on and on about it, even though they'll tell you all day long that the scientific method cannot even address the question of the supernatural.

Cannot 'even' address the supernatural implies that this is a deficiency in the scientific method.    Where do you find anything that 'addresses' the 'supernatural';  not just claims, but actually does with verifiable results?    Also, I would argue that the scientific method does indeed 'address' the supernatural in the sense that it has, over time, explained much of which was thought to be supernatural.   For example, epileptic seizures were once thought to be demonic possession.   Volcanic activity was once thought to be an angry god (Vulcan).   Funny thing, when the supernatural is explained it simply becomes the natural.

Rather circular when you think about it. Science can't address God but won't believe God exists except through science. 

Science could address God.   Define God.   Present evidence in support of God.   Engage the scientific method.

Lots of complaints, but you did not offer any evidence of God. 

You're just restating the same failing using a different word. Empirical evidence, verifiable evidence, and now sound evidence. It's all the same problem with a different label.

I see you have not provided evidence.   Just complaints.

You are the person who wants to be convinced. I can't keep trying evidence, hoping that one day you'll decide it's good enough. What a waste of time! And how thoroughly unscientific, to boot.

I still see no evidence.  Now it is excuses.

I have said it over and over. For believers, whatever evidence they have seen and considered, it is enough for them. You have no grounds for telling other people their beliefs are wrong and they don't owe you anything in terms of proof.

Strawman.   I am asking for evidence.   And yes, they do not owe me anything.   I have asked for evidence and now the response is deflection.

You have to decide what would be enough for you. Until you can define it, you have no business arguing it.

Arguing what?   I have asked for what you would consider persuasive evidence.   Clearly you have nothing to offer.   So why are you here?

In that situation, I am someone who - like anyone - has access to extensive data on the surface of the Earth, its flora, fauna, and geology. It is simple, using this data to demonstrate that the enchanted crystal forest doesn't exist.

It's an invisible forest only I can see.  My fairy godmother (whom only I can see) designed it so.  My faith in it is evidence that it exists.

As a note, if someone were to define 'god' as omniscient and include that 'god' could be surprised, learn or change its mind, I would suggest that said god cannot exist because it is a defined contradiction.

Tacos has indicated that evidence can be used to show a particular defined entity cannot exist.   I agree.

Agreed.

All their faith is in the scientific method, which is why they keep going on and on about it, even though they'll tell you all day long that the scientific method cannot even address the question of the supernatural.

It can't address the supernatural because the supernatural is a baseless, fictional construct. It's imaginary. It doesn't exist.

You can't work with something that doesn't exist.

Here is the entirety of TiG's comment. 

I see you have not provided evidence.   Just complaints.

I still see no evidence.  Now it is excuses.

Strawman.   I am asking for evidence.   And yes, they do not owe me anything.   I have asked for evidence and now the response is deflection.

Arguing what?   I have asked for what you would consider persuasive evidence.   Clearly you have nothing to offer.   So why are you here?

The very same TiG who likes to complain about people not discussing the topic and claims instead they are making it personal. And if you disagree, it's "meta." Look in the mirror, TiG. Holy shit!

When you make a comment that is thoughtful you get a likewise thoughtful response from me.   When you engage in tactics as with your prior comment you will get a response appropriate to your comment.

Here again, you focus on me with meta.   

Try to formulate a thoughtful comment and see what happens.

There are also people who claim they were abducted by aliens.

People that have claimed to have seen Bigfoot, but no evidence means????  Does he exist?

"The Earth is round" is a pretty extraordinary claim, but all you have to do is look at it to see that it's true.

Just to throw a wrench in this the earth is not actually round it is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.  People used to think it was round and some still do but science and of course the scientific method have proven that not to be the case.

People that have claimed to have seen Bigfoot, but no evidence means????  Does he exist?

While Bigfoot's existence remains to be proven, there is actual evidence of some large bipedal creature living in some ancient forests so the claims are not just based on personal accounts or sightings. Some even claim to have video evidence, and while the footage has yet to be authenticated, its certainly more compelling than peoples tales of being abducted by aliens or claims of some personal experience of God.

So in other words:  He MAY exist or he MAY NOT exist.  Do ghosts exist?  Some people claim they do.  Can I work magick?  I think it all depends on what you want to believe.  I feel as long as that belief does not infringe on the lives of others then it matters not to me if they have evidence or proof.  However, when they try to make their unsubstantiated beliefs part of the laws of the country I live in - then I have a problem with it.   Then I would need irrefutable evidence.

I'll settle for round-ish.

People disagree.   One can either formulate a thoughtful rebuttal or engage in slimy tactics (an indication of an inability to engage in thoughtful debate).

If someone claims they have evidence of god then it is perfectly reasonable to ask what they mean by 'god' and to ask for the evidence.   If the evidence is presented, it is perfectly reasonable to be critical of that evidence if one provides the actual reasons substantiating the criticism.

Everyone has the right to be critical of a declared point.   That means everyone can deem a posit wrong and debate it.

That is how debate forums work.   One debates the shit out of the points (with thoughtful rebuttals) but does not make things personal.

You just replied to a comment I made to a different member that was on-topic, not personal, and had nothing to do with you personally beyond that members reference to you. Yet here you are with a 100% meta comment, talking about slimy tactics and making things personal. What the hell? Discuss the topic with me or piss off.

Lol that works

Well, most of us can at least agree that its not flat.   The Universe on the other hand .... may be.

Kooky eh?

You still wouldn't consider that proof of God.

Even were I to see valid proof of a supreme being, I would not worship it. 

Bowing down to anything/anybody is not in my nature.

You mentioned me in the comment:

Tacos @1.1.16 ☞  In the meantime, if others say they are satisfied, who are you, or Gordy, or TiG - or anyone else - to say they are wrong?

You claimed that it is out of place for one person to posit that another person is wrong.    That is nonsense; especially in a forum such as NT.   Thus I rebutted your assertion:

TiG @1.1.41 ☞ People disagree.   One can either formulate a thoughtful rebuttal or engage in slimy tactics (an indication of an inability to engage in thoughtful debate).

If someone claims they have evidence of god then it is perfectly reasonable to ask what they mean by 'god' and to ask for the evidence.   If the evidence is presented, it is perfectly reasonable to be critical of that evidence if one provides the actual reasons substantiating the criticism.

Everyone has the right to be critical of a declared point.   That means everyone can deem a posit wrong and debate it.

That is how debate forums work.   One debates the shit out of the points (with thoughtful rebuttals) but does not make things personal.

The above is my rebuttal to the assertion you made which specifically named me.

It boggles the mind that in today's technological and information era, there are still those who cling to silly superstitions like god/s as real or true or as an explanation for things. 

How does your explanation account for scientists and mathematicians that believe in God? 

How does your explanation account for scientists and mathematicians that believe in God? 

That's their own personal beliefs. They might believe for the same reasons anyone else does: emotional comfort, a sense of community or belonging, they were taught or indoctrinated to, ect.. 

It doesn't.

Asking for proof of the (by definition) unprovable.   The ultimate in unreasonable.

Asking for proof of the (by definition) unprovable.   The ultimate in unreasonable.

I realize proof is too high a standard (although, that would be nice). That's why I also said evidence. But it's not so much about being unproven. It's about proving (or empirically supported with evidence) what is claimed or believed.

Asking for proof of the (by definition) unprovable.   The ultimate in unreasonable.

If anything qualifies as the ultimate in unreasonable, it has to be professing wholehearted, unwavering belief in something for which the proof is (by definition) unprovable.

The reasonable position, on the other hand, would be to NOT claim absolute certainty about wholly anecdotal, supernatural god concepts that can only ever be imagined (making them 100% imaginary).

“Faith” is an unattainable concept for the faithless and yet the faithless will remain a significant minority for any foreseeable future.   No numbers “fallacy” justifications needed.

The concept of expecting proof for something that is by definition unprovable, is the only truly crazy thing in this conversation.    I know that’s all the faithless have to hang on to be it’s okay.    

We still love you.

The concept of expecting proof for something that is by definition unprovable, is the only truly crazy thing in this conversation.

Who is expecting proof for the unprovable?    Gordy stated upfront in his article:

First is the obvious lack of any objective, empirical evidence or proof. 

Evidence is included in his statement.

It is not possible to prove there is no god.   It may also be impossible to prove there is a god.   (Who knows, just because it has not been done does not mean that proof is impossible.)

Thus the focus on evidence.    Thus far, there is no persuasive evidence (think of evidence as that which would pass muster within the scientific method) that any god actually exists.   And the more specific the definition of the god, the more evidence would be required.   For example, a god defined simply as 'creator of everything' is immediately evidenced (in part) by our own existence.   A claim of 'sentient creator of everything' in contrast would require evidence supporting the property of sentience.   When we get to the Christian god, for example, the claim is very specific, including factors such as:

• omnipotence
• omniscience
• omnipresence
• omnibenevolence
• perfection
• singular
• eternal

And on top of these factors are stories of this god containing all sorts of details and apparent contradictions.   Providing evidence that the Christian god (God) is the unique grandest possible entity is quite a tall order.   In contrast, however, it does not take much to logically note contradictions which are evidence that God, as defined, is a contradiction and thus does not exist.   For example, an omniscient entity that learns or changes His mind.

“Faith” is an unattainable concept for the faithless and yet the faithless will remain a significant minority for any foreseeable future.   No numbers “fallacy” justifications needed.

Faith is just a religious concept (within the context of god/s and/or religion). Even those without faith, such as atheists, understand the concept of faith. The "faithless" are simply not convinced that the object of faith exists or is real. But most are probably willing to reconsider if there was evidence presented. 

The concept of expecting proof for something that is by definition unprovable, is the only truly crazy thing in this conversation.    I know that’s all the faithless have to hang on to be it’s okay.   

Proof is nice, but also unrealistic. Especially where god/s are concerned. But simple empirical evidence will do too. As it stands, there is no such evidence for any god/s. Neither does any seem to be forthcoming. So the "faithless" remain unconvinced and any claims of certainty regarding the existence of god/s will rightfully garner challenges.

Faith is just a religious concept

Well, i know this conversation is pointless with you but one last time ......

Every modern dictionary disagrees with you.   Nearly every definition of the word disagrees with you.   I know you think you can pick and choose words like "faith" to redefine and/or attempt to remove from society that tend to hurt your preferred narrative but you don't really get to do that.

You'll try, i know, but it changes nothing.

The definition of faith is what it is and was established long before you came along.   And will continue to be accepted as such long after you're gone.

Such is the reality in this world where the sky is blue.

Every modern dictionary disagrees with you.   Nearly every definition of the word disagrees with you.

Not at all. Faith is defined (in the context of this discussion pertaining to god/s) as a belief or trust in a god and/or religious doctrines. In that respect, it is a religious concept.

   I know you think you can pick and choose words like "faith" to redefine and/or attempt to remove from society that tend to hurt your preferred narrative but you don't really get to do that.

I'm doing no such thing. I can include the Webster Dictionary to support my previous statement.

The definition of faith is what it is and was established long before you came along.   And will continue to be accepted as such long after you're gone.

See first statement. 

Not at all. Faith is defined (in the context of this discussion pertaining to god/s) as a belief or trust in a god and/or religious doctrines. In that respect, it is a religious concept.

You conveniently left out the cogent part of the definition in the case i was making:

b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Very disingenuous of you since we've had this discussion multiple times before but i'm sure that omission was just an error on your part right?

I'm doing no such thing. I can include the Webster Dictionary to support my previous statement.

Really?   See first response above to support my statement and refute yours.

See first statement.

See first statement above.

You conveniently left out the cogent part of the definition in the case i was making:

Not at all. If you want to nitpick, I can include a Webster link. 

b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

And how does that disagree with the idea of faith being a religious concept? That seems to support my position.

Really?   See first response above to support my statement and refute yours.

And see mine! You haven't offered anything which refutes what I said. If anything, you made my case for me. 

Not at all. If you want to nitpick, I can include a Webster link.

I'm not nitpicking and you don't need to add a link.   I'm not the one disagreeing with a definition of "faith."   You are.   See below.

And how does that disagree with the idea of faith being a religious concept? That seems to support my position.

Really?   Do you see "religion" mentioned anywhere in that description?   Perhaps you can help me out because i don't.

You haven't offered anything which refutes what I said. If anything, you made my case for me.

That's because you refuse to accept an accepted definition of "faith" at face value.  

Denial is not logical.

I'm not the one disagreeing with a definition of "faith."   You are.   See below.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to faith within the context of religious concepts like god/s. 

Really?   Do you see "religion" mentioned anywhere in that description?   Perhaps you can help me out because i don't.

Tell me you're not trying to be obtuse about this. Very well, here: Merriam-Webster

Definition of faith 
1a
: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty 
b
(1)
: fidelity to one's promises
(2)
: sincerity of intentions 
acted in good faith
2
a
(1)
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2)
: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b
(1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof 
(2)
: complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction 
especially : a system of religious beliefs  

Here's another definition source. Want more? Here you go. Let me know when you want to stop playing games!

That's because you refuse to accept an accepted definition of "faith" at face value.  

I just provided you with the definition.

Seems to me that when discussing religious belief (and I think an article on gods might just qualify as such), the context determines the usage of 'faith'.   In a religious context, faith is defined as:

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

rather than

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Hard to imagine why this is not obvious.

And i'm referring to the definition i've shared.   All you have "proved" is the definition i've shared for faith is valid.   Just like i said.

The definition you seem intent on completely discounting.   I on the other hand have not discounted the definition you've shared.   Both are universally accepted definitions of "faith."   There's the difference.   I'm not trying to change the definition of anything.   You are by omission that is convenient to the narrative you like to push here.

Denial remains illogical.

Do you accept the reality of context determining which of several usages of a word is intended?

If the context is religious, which usage of ‘faith’ would naturally apply?

Not interested in your word games TiG

My point has been made clearly and concisely numerous times here and in past discussions on this topic.   Like usual you won't think so and i really don't care what you think so save yourself the bandwidth and don't bother.

So here you go, another last word, lecturing insult opportunity for you ............

Yet again, I ask a simple question and get instead personal meta.

My comment was devoid of anything negative, just a simple observation and a probative question.  

Your response was insulting, accusatory and snarky.   Basically over-the-top negative.   You can pretend that I am the trouble maker here but your comments betray your pretense.

I have provided the definition of faith, cited several sources for it, specified the context in which it's used, and even emphasized where religion is mentioned in the definition, which you seemed to infer wasn't there or otherwise irrelevant. And instead of owning up to it, you continue to play these games, ignore the context of the usage of the word as i specified with respect to the article/discission, and remain obtuse about it. 

Lots of projection going around lately, eh?

I agree completely. It is rather obvious, is it not?

I have provided the definition of faith, cited several sources for it, specified the context in which it's used,I have provided the definition of faith, cited several sources for it, specified the context in which it's used, and even emphasized where religion is mentioned in the definition,

As have i, repeatedly.   Even pointing out where religion isn't mentioned in the accepted definition i usedand you continue to ignore the context of that definition.

which you seemed to infer wasn't there or otherwise irrelevant.

I've done no such thing.   I've accepted the definition you've provided several times as ONE accepted definition of faith.   You're the one not acknowledging the accepted definition i've referred to.   Even after quoting it once yourself.   I find that denial very illogical.

And instead of owning up to it, you continue to play these games, ignore the context of the usage of the word as i specified with respect to the article/discission, and remain obtuse about it.

There's the attack on intellect that doesn't apply in the least.   Took you longer than usual to get there Gordy but like usual you got there.

Personally i find the ego stroking coming from the mutual admiration club here to be quite obnoxious myself.

Look    at what followed your comment.   Arguing for the sake of argument?   Projection, reframing, etc.   Snark for the sake of snark?

It is rare to engage someone nowadays and not be faced with cliche tactics in place of a thoughtful rebuttal.  

Yes, I've noticed..

Even pointing out where religion isn't mentioned in the accepted definition i usedand you continue to ignore the context of that definition.

I cited 3 sources for the definition and ALL of them use religion within the definition. In an article about god/s, how else do you think "faith" is applied?

Here's what I initially said: "Faith is just a religious concept (within the context of god/s and/or religion)." 

You said the dictionary disagrees with me: "Every modern dictionary disagrees with you.  Nearly every definition of the word disagrees with you."

So I cited 3 dictionaries, while you didn't cite any source. All my cited sources include faith within the established definition/s. Where is the disagreement? Your statement is outright and demonstrably false! Instead of owning up to that, you continue to argue and play these games. It's becoming quite tiresome.

 I've accepted the definition you've provided several times as ONE accepted definition of faith.   You're the one not acknowledging the accepted definition i've referred to.   Even after quoting it once yourself.   I find that denial very illogical.

The definition of faith as it pertains to the context of the discussion, as I already specified. It seems you keep trying to deny that aspect.

There's the attack on intellect that doesn't apply in the least.   Took you longer than usual to get there Gordy but like usual you got there.

No attack. But simply an assessment of your series of posts surrounding the usage and meaning of a word. And apparently, I'm not the only one who noticed. 

Personally i find the ego stroking coming from the mutual admiration club here to be quite obnoxious myself.

Spare us the snark. Address the topic.

Any perceived "snark" or anything else you two are stroking each other on is completely fabricated in your heads.

I suggest you two just keep doing that without me as i'm not interested in that in the least.    That way, you'll get the agreement you are looking for every time and you'll both be much happier.

Enjoy!

Any perceived "snark" or anything else you two are stroking each other on is completely fabricated in your heads.

When you have nothing of value to offer, you make things personal. 

I suggest you two just keep doing that without me as i'm not interested in that in the least.    That way, you'll get the agreement you are looking for every time and you'll both be much happier.

You had a chance to address the topic and posts. Instead, you chose to play games and get personal. Yeah, we're not interested in that. Goodbye!

When you have nothing of value to offer, you make things personal.

I've offered plenty.   That you don't accept what i've offered is your problem not mine.   Then you fabricate personal attacks that aren't there.   If i choose to "attack" you i promise you, you will know it.   That hasn't happened yet no matter how hard you try to make it so.    No safe spaces here Gordy.

You had a chance to address the topic and posts. Instead, you chose to play games and get personal.

Lol .... i'm playing games?   Hilarious!

Yeah, we're not interested in that. Goodbye!

About time you stopped playing whatever game it is you've been playing here.

Buh bye and you have a nice day now ya hear!

I've done no such thing.   I've accepted the definition you've provided several times as ONE accepted definition of faith.   You're the one not acknowledging the accepted definition i've referred to.   Even after quoting it once yourself.   I find that denial very illogical.

Given English words have multiples usages (distinct meanings) it is necessary in the process of communication to discern which of the usages applies.    Typically, the disambiguation is accomplished with context.

' Faith ' has several usages that you and Gordy have both acknowledged ( Oxford ):

You will not be able to change the dictionary usages for ' faith ' and it is pointless to claim that the context is not religious since Gordy explicitly named the context upfront.

Lol, i see.   So you and Gordy have "decided" the religious definition of faith is the only one that applies here.   Good for you but sorry, you two aren't the last arbiters of definitions and i clearly disagreed across the board using this directly from my Merriam Webster:

b(1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

A definition that speaks directly to the premise of this article, your article, contemplating the existence of God(s) in that it describes a belief in something "God(s)" for which there is no proof.   Not accepting that definition in this case is just ...... puzzling and reeks of rampant denial and disingenuousness.

And for the last time.   I have not refused the religious definition of faith but i've clearly been using the other definition as noted above from the start of this conversation.   Attempting to exclude either definition it is just not rational imo.

So you and Gordy have "decided" the religious definition of faith is the only one that applies here.   Good for you but sorry, you two aren't the last arbiters of definitions and i clearly disagreed across the board using this directly from my Merriam Webster:

How else do you think the definition of faith applies to an article about god/s? Your disagreement is noted, but also misplaced as I already cited 3 sources of the definition and even emphasized where the definition is applied, which you claimed wasn't there. You're flat out wrong on this one!

Not accepting that definition in this case is just ...... puzzling and reeks of rampant denial and disingenuousness.

Where did you get the idea that definition wasn't accepted? I even spoke in some comments regarding the irrationality of belief without proof. That certainly doesn't refute anything I said. I even said that aspect makes faith a religious concept, which you initially disagreed with. You're really grasping at straws now.

And for the last time.   I have not refused the religious definition of faith but i've clearly been using the other definition as noted above from the start of this conversation. 

You've only ignored the context in which it is used. So again, how else do you think the definition of faith applies to an article about god/s?

So you and Gordy have "decided" the religious definition of faith is the only one that applies here. 

No.  It is as though you are working overtime to not understand something basic.  I showed with a quote that Gordy explicitly named the context of his opening statement:  

Gordy @ 2.2.5 ☞ Faith is just a religious concept (within the context of god/s and/or religion).

Clearly Gordy has identified what he meant by 'faith'.   He identified the dictionary usage that he is employing.   Being clear causes a petty debate?

firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

Is a firm belief in a god for which there is no proof religious or not?    In an article on gods, would you naturally pick the religious usage of faith or a secular usage?   I am running out of words to express the obvious.

And i am running out of any desire to continue this discussion if you can call it that.   Which i really don't  

You two have your opinion and i have mine and never the twain shall they meet.    It's pointless but you did get one last sanctimonious intellectual dig in there so you got that going for you.

And i am running out of any desire to continue this discussion if you can call it that.  

It seems you're not so much discussing as you are simply arguing.

You two have your opinion and i have mine and never the twain shall they meet.   

No, we've provided verifiable facts and explained them repeatedly to you. And yet, you continue to argue over something so basic, while ignoring follow up questions posed to you.

It's pointless but you did get one last sanctimonious intellectual dig in there so you got that going for you.

Emotional rhetoric adds no value.

Good!   I have been making the case that your complaints are both petty and demonstrably wrong.   Ceasing this nonsense is the right move.

How does your explanation account for scientists and mathematicians that believe in God? 

Scientists (and mathematicians, et. al.) are still human beings who might find comfort in beliefs that are yet to be substantiated with evidence.    

Given there is no proof (scientific or otherwise) that there is no sentient creator, there really is nothing logical or factual preventing a scientist (for example) from believing that there might be a sentient creator.

The key, however, is that the belief is not based on facts and logic.   People kid ourselves all the time;  often to bring comfort.

It's not illogical to believe in God. 

You may not believe this, but I believe in a Higher Power. Call it God if you want.

However, I know that my belief is a "belief". There is absolutely no logic to it at all. It's pure emotion. That's why it's called "faith". Faith doesn't need to be proven. It it were proven, it wouldn't be faith

Depends on what you mean by 'illogical'.

If you mean:   " not sensible or thought out in a logical way "  then I agree.   People can clearly reason their way into a belief.   They can start with a supposition (e.g. the Earth is flat) and gather facts that support the supposition.  They can then use reason to logically connect their accepted facts to conclude that indeed the Earth is flat.

I hold that flat Earth beliefs, as an example, are not based on facts and logic because they kid themselves by selecting only ' advantageous ' facts and apply logical fallacies to support their beliefs.   

Do you disagree?

However, I know that my belief is a "belief". There is absolutely no logic to it at all. It's pure emotion.

Agnostic deism, what you just described, has been around for centuries.   I would not be surprised if a substantial number of claimed theists are in actuality agnostic deists.

But it is irrational. 

Flat earth is illogical because we have proof it is false. 

Belief in God can be logical because there is no proof that God does not exist, plus belief in a creator can be logical. 

It got here somehow. Something cannot come from nothing. Ergo this existence comes from a supernatural source. 

You may believe those statements are wrong, and there is no supernatural, but they are not illogical. 

Flat earth is illogical because we have proof it is false. 

As usual, you focus on the example instead of recognizing the point illustrated by the example.   The example illustrated that human beings often apply confirmation bias and fallacious thinking.

Belief in God can be logical because there is no proof that God does not exist, plus belief in a creator can be logical. 

Belief in a sentient creator is perfectly rational if the believer recognizes that the belief is speculative.    

Ergo this existence comes from a supernatural source. 

Supernatural simply means we cannot (yet) explain it: " attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature ."      Science has routinely explained supernatural phenomena;  once explained the supernatural then become natural.    'Supernatural' is a religious weasel word.   It simply means: 'not yet explained by our understanding of reality'.

It got here somehow. Something cannot come from nothing.

I agree, by definition of the word 'nothing' it is impossible for something to emerge from nothing.   That means, logically, that there is an eternal first cause.   That first cause might be the quintessential substance of existence — that which underlies all that exists.   Following suit, all that exists is a form of this substance.   If there is a sentient creator, it logically would be an emergent property of existence rather than the first cause.   It makes more sense that the first cause is formless and that forms result over interactions rather than the first cause being the most complex form possible.

Ergo, it is more reasonable that the universe is an emergent property of existence rather than being the product of a sentient creator.   Skip the middle man (the sentient creator).

You have a theory, which is your opinion. 

it is more reasonable that the universe is an emergent property of existence rather than being the product of a sentient creator. 

I don't define supernatural as natural things or events that have not yet been explained. 

Super- natural , to me, is something that exists or originates outside this nature. It is unexplained because we have no means to investigate supernatural causes or forces. We can investigate nature, we cannot investigate events that are caused outside of this nature. 

The supernatural is taken on faith as well. 

You have a theory, which is your opinion.

I have not proposed a theory.

Super- natural , to me, is something that exists or originates outside this nature. It is unexplained because we have no means to investigate supernatural causes or forces. We can investigate nature, we cannot investigate events that are caused outside of this nature. 

If we have no means (implicitly ever) to investigate the supernatural then how do you know anything is supernatural?   (You answer my question below.)

The supernatural is taken on faith as well. 

As you define it, the supernatural is entirely speculation.  Why even bother speaking about something that is by your definition 100% human imagination?

Your theory that 

it is more reasonable that the universe is an emergent property of existence rather than being the product of a sentient creator.

is speculation. Every conclusion drawn about things that are not known is speculation. 

It got here somehow. Something cannot come from nothing. Ergo this existence comes from a supernatural source. 

An argument from ignorance, which demonstrates a point made in the article: we don't know something so we automatically defer to god/s as an explanation. 

You may believe those statements are wrong, and there is no supernatural, but they are not illogical. 

Invoking supernatural explanations when there is no evidence for it is illogical.

The supernatural is taken on faith as well. 

Which makes it an irrational position.

Super- natural , to me, is something that exists or originates outside this nature.

If it is outside of nature, then it cannot, by definition, have any effect or interaction with nature. Otherwise, it is no longer outside nature.

it is more reasonable that the universe is an emergent property of existence rather than being the product of a sentient creator.

We know the universe exists. Therefore, existence has always existed.

As usual, you focus on the example instead of recognizing the point illustrated by the example. 

You're dismissing his point without good cause. John didn't just focus on the example. There was more to his comment than that. He pointed out a critical difference. His point is a fair and relevant one.

The example illustrated that human beings often apply confirmation bias and fallacious thinking.

Yes, but they don't usually do so in the face of clear evidence that disproves their beliefs.

Super- natural , to me, is something that exists or originates outside this nature.

I think that is a more useful and accurate definition.

Your theory that 

it is more reasonable that the universe is an emergent property of existence rather than being the product of a sentient creator.

is speculation.

I presented logic based on modern knowledge.   In a word, I am arguing parsimony.    On one hand we have the most complex entity simply existing (magically) as the first cause.   On the other hand we have the substance of existence existing.   We know that existence 'is' so there is no speculation.   We know that forms of existence reduce to lower forms.   Currently we have reduced existence down to particle physics and we have every reason to expect that the reduction continues.   Well, when the reduction hits the bottom, we have the quintessential substance of existence.

Every conclusion drawn about things that are not known is speculation. 

You speculate that there is a supernatural that exists that we cannot ever possible observe.   That is 100% speculation.

What I posited is based on facts:

1.  existence 'is';  existence is demonstrably true
2.  existence itself did not come from 'nothing' 
3.  forms of existence reduce to lower forms
4.  there must be a first cause;  something must initiate the causal chain

Based on these facts, we consider possibilities regarding the first cause:

1.  The first cause is the quintessential substance of existence itself which ...
   1.  ... interacts to produce forms (things).   One of which might be our universe.
   2.  ... forms the most complex possible sentient entity that in turn creates things such as our universe 
2.  The first cause is the most complex possible sentient entity that in turn creates things such as our universe.

We have evidence of matter and energy in our universe interacting to produce more complex forms.

We have zero evidence of a complex sentient creator.

There was more to his comment than that. He pointed out a critical difference. His point is a fair and relevant one.

And I replied to that part.   Did you read my reply?

Yes, but they don't usually do so in the face of clear evidence that disproves their beliefs.

I disagree.   How many times have you read individuals claim that the Earth is flat, that evolution is a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists, that the Earth is 6,000 years old and human beings coexisted with dinosaurs?

People ignore clear evidence all the time.

You did not reply to the balance of my reply to John.   This is where I directly addressed his points.   

People ignore clear evidence all the time.

I said they usually don't. I didn't say "never" or "all the time." You can always find an exception to a general rule, but how does doing that contribute to the conversation? You accuse me of not reading a reply, but you have now ignored key details in comments from both me and John.

See, this is what I'm talking about. There's no dialectic here. No truth-seeking. Just the need to win an argument. That's all that ever happens in these "conversations" about God. Here, you wanted to do it by equating a belief in God with flat-Earthism. John showed you quickly and easily why that comparison didn't work but you weren't open to that criticism.

It's not illogical to believe in God. 

I can't stand the taste of coconut. I cannot prove that coconut flavor is empirically disgusting. That's my own personal taste and choice. Is it illogical? Some might think so, and they've tried to get me to try German Chocolate cake, macaroons and Almond Joy candy bars trying to convince me otherwise, but to me they all taste gross.

So believe if you want to believe in a God or gods. Go ahead, that's your own personal preference. But just like my friends and family stopped trying to convince me of the wonders of coconut, until there is empirical evidence of any deity all you can do is express how much you love believing but accept that others might not like or accept your preference as "delicious" or "fact based".

The reason that there are so many different faiths is because there is no empirical evidence any of them are actually accurate. If there was evidence, then all other religious without proof would eventually disappear. But there isn't, so we have thousands of faiths that have gone extinct and thousands more that took their place. Even within one religion there often thousands of different interpretations which is what lead to the over 2,000 different Christian denominations.

So without actual evidence, you can practice your faith and set an example for how to live and by that example maybe others will say "Hey, that guy is doing really well, he must be doing something right, perhaps it's his faith. Maybe I'll look into that". But trying to go around pompously telling people "Truth here! Come and get it! The only truth is right here and I have it and the billions of others who don't share my faith are just stupid morons for not believing the way I do!" while at the same time having exactly the same evidence of truth that every other religion does, aka "none", then expect to get your proclamations snidely thrown back in your face regularly.

Just because you followed a trail laid down by others over the last 3,000 years that led you to your current beliefs, doesn't mean the trail is actual evidence of anything supernatural. The trail consists of unproven and essentially unprovable claims made mostly by people who lived thousands of years ago and their accounts are no different than any supposed alien abductee of today in that they have no evidence to back up their claims.

So believe all you want, practice your faith to your hearts content, just don't claim evidence unless you actually have some.

I said they usually don't. I didn't say "never" or "all the time."

I did not claim that you said or even implied that people never hold beliefs in the face of clear evidence that disproves their beliefs.    My response was that people ignore clear evidence all the time.   That means that it is common for people to hold beliefs in spite of the evidence.

I am not and was not talking in extremes;  that is absurd.   Why presume absurdity instead of just taking what I wrote?

You accuse me of not reading a reply, but you have now ignored key details in comments from both me and John.

Are you trying to find a way to make this personal?   Just stick with what I write.

See, this is what I'm talking about. There's no dialectic here.

You are the one messing up the discourse.   Maybe you should read what you have been writing.  I am making arguments and rebuttals.   You, in contrast, are trying to find ways to interpret my words in unlikely ways and make this personal.   Now you claim 'see' when the lack of dialectic is directly a result of the approach you are taking .

Here, you wanted to do it by equating a belief in God with flat-Earthism.

Another example of spinning my words.   I did not equate the two, I used flat-Earth as an example of believing against the evidence.

John showed you quickly and easily why that comparison didn't work but you weren't open to that criticism.

Because I did not equate the two.   See above.     And read again my explanation to John:

TiG @ 2.3.7 ☞ The example illustrated that human beings often apply confirmation bias and fallacious thinking .

This comment from you is a perfect example of how to derail intellectual discourse into personal meta.    An then, ironically, you accuse me of what you are doing.

Are you trying to find a way to make this personal?   Just stick with what I write.

And here we go. Now you're going to start accusing me of making it personal. You do this a lot, TiG. And not just with me. All I have done is discuss the topic and the arguments people make. No one went after you personally. You do this so much that it really looks like a kind of red herring.

This comment from you is a perfect example of how to derail intellectual discourse into personal meta.

Self-flattery. Just because you post ideas on the internet, that doesn't mean you are engaging in intellectual discourse. These God seeds are typically flawed six ways from Sunday and this one is no exception so far.

And here you are yet again with the personal derails.

Sorry, not impressed.  Belief in God cannot be "illogical" since you cannot prove that God does not exist. Belief in God might be ill founded, or wrong, but it is not illogical. 

-

If something from outside this nature could effect this nature, that would likely be, well, a Supreme Being. 

You don't know there are no super-natural agencies, you just assume that is the case. 

I don't mind atheists, they really seem to enjoy this stuff. 

But atheists have no more claim to the "default" position than believers do. 

Belief in God cannot be "illogical" since you cannot prove that God does not exist.

Depends on how you define 'God'.

Sorry, not impressed. 

I wasn't trying to impress you.

Belief in God cannot be "illogical" since you cannot prove that God does not exist. Belief in God might be ill founded, or wrong, but it is not illogical. 

If not illogical, then certainly irrational.

If something from outside this nature could effect this nature, that would likely be, well, a Supreme Being. 

Pure conjecture. For all you kow, it could be some super advanced interdimensional species (a la Star Trek). 

You don't know there are no super-natural agencies, you just assume that is the case.

A safe assumption, since there is no evidence for anything supernatural. 

But atheists have no more claim to the "default" position than believers do. 

Atheists are generally not making affirmative claims about god/s or the supernatural.

You do this a lot, TiG. And not just with me.

Yep BTDT .... that is a common tactic on this topic for some here.

Belief in God cannot be "illogical" since you cannot prove that God does not exist

So by your argument, it's not illogical for me to believe in flying red-spotted hippos. Or anything at all, for that matter.

You dont know me then. I dont claim there is evidence of God. All I know is something cannot come from nothing and this existence was either created from outside it or it is eternal. The concept of eternal existence is in itself supernatural, in my opinion. 

it's not illogical for me to believe in flying red-spotted hippos

I don't know.   Is there a big following for believing in airborne red spotted hippos for the last few thousand years or is it just you?

The number of people who believe something doesn't matter, or how long they've believed it. 

Was there a huge following and a long timeframe for Jesus back in the day?

The number of people who believe something doesn't matter, or how long they've believed it.

It matters a little, or people wouldn't cite agreement on things to bolster their credibility. For example, 95% of climate scientists agree that people are changing the climate . . . or 17 security agencies say Trump was working with the Russians . . . or X number of women say they were attacked by Judge Kavanaugh, Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Cosby.

Was there a huge following and a long timeframe for Jesus back in the day?

Apparently, yeah. The gospels speak of thousands of people following him around. Pauls letters to other Christians are addressed to whole communities of believers scattered about the Mediterranean. Roman and Hebrew writers wrote about how annoying they found the Christians to be. The Emperor set about persecuting them. And that persecution continued for almost three centuries even as the number of believers grew.

And all of that began either during Jesus's lifetime or within the first few decades after his death and has endured for 2,000 years. 

The power mongers of the time invented a Messiah and a means of control and profit over the foolish and gullible. The religion scam continues to this day. 

Sure, you are entitled to that opinion.

Opinions do vary widely.

Back in the day?  

Do you mean a couple thousand years ago or ..... a couple hundred years ago or ..... a couple decades ago?   Help me out a little with your "back in the day" time reference.

When it all started, a couple thousand years ago. It was just a small cult originally.

Okay, so back in the day means a couple thousand years to you.   Got it.

To me it means a few decades ago.

Many people agreeing or a "mob mentality" regarding an issue doesn't lend credibility. That just makes it popular. Credibility is earned (or lost) by the evidence presented to support (or refute) an issue or notion.

You can think that, but you're wrong. There are many circumstances where that limited philosophy doesn't hold up. I listed a few above.

You can think that, but you're wrong. There are many circumstances where that limited philosophy doesn't hold up. I listed a few above.

So actual evidence doesn't lend credibility but popularity does? Are you serious? 

So actual evidence doesn't lend credibility but popularity does? Are you serious?

When that popularity is based on personal experience or observation, absolutely. However, I did not say anything about "actual evidence" not lending credibility. For one thing, I happen to think testimony of personal experience and observation is "actual evidence."

When that popularity is based on personal experience or observation, absolutely.

Observation is better than experience. Experiences can be quite subjective. Repeated or collaborative observations is better still, as that establishes credibility and reliability.

However, I did not say anything about "actual evidence" not lending credibility. For one thing, I happen to think testimony of personal experience and observation is "actual evidence."

As I said, experience is subjective and anecdotal. People can be "experience" the same event, but relate different accounts of it. Observation is better if there is something to collaborate what is observed. But again, someone relaying an experience or personal observation still amounts to "because I said so." If that's all it takes to satisfy you, then you have the bar set quite low. 

But again, someone relaying an experience or personal observation still amounts to "because I said so."

There is nothing wrong with listening to people and what they have to say. It can be the beginning of investigation or the end. Every crime that is reported starts with someone who has a story. It's not enough to convict, but it is enough to look further.

One person complaining about Bill Cosby might raise an eyebrow or elicit a laugh. 10, 20, or 30 people with similar stories results in a conviction.

If that's all it takes to satisfy you, then you have the bar set quite low. 

You're dipping into straw man territory. I never said that that was all it takes to satisfy me. No single individual piece of evidence is likely to satisfy me. However, a single person's experience or testimony can be part of a body of evidence that is compelling in its totality. As we see in the Cosby reference.

I happen to think testimony of personal experience and observation is "actual evidence."

It is evidence, but a very weak form.    There are people today who testify that they have been abducted by aliens, have had direct dialogues with Jesus, etc.    The ability of the mind to be deceived is well studied.   Eyewitnesses, for example, can easily by manipulated into seeing something that in actuality they did not see.   Then we can add in how people routinely kid themselves.

The legal system relies on eyewitness testimony because it typically is working with low evidence.   But it is not considered great evidence .

And repeated claims of an original eyewitness will, given time and translation, evolve into pretty much anything.

So when speaking of evidence for existence of the grandest possible entity (God), the evidence would of course be spectacular.   The greater the claim, the higher the quality of evidence required to substantiate the claim.   I can claim that I am now on a Keto diet; the level of evidence for that would probably be just my word.   Low claim, low level of evidence.   If, on the other hand, I claimed to be a direct descendant of Abraham Lincoln (whose lineage is known to be dead) then the level of evidence is considerably higher.   A claim that the grandest possible entity exists would need to be substantially better evidenced.

There is nothing wrong with listening to people and what they have to say. It can be the beginning of investigation or the end.

I never said there was anything wrong with listening. But whatever anyone says should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if they purport something as factual or true. There should be something objective to back up any statement or claim.

Every crime that is reported starts with someone who has a story. It's not enough to convict, but it is enough to look further.

But it usually takes something solid and objective to convict, or exonerate.

One person complaining about Bill Cosby might raise an eyebrow or elicit a laugh. 10, 20, or 30 people with similar stories results in a conviction.

And you don't see the intrinsic problem with that? Basically, anyone can say anything, fabricate something, or let personal opinion, emotion, or bias get in the way. But whether you have 30 people or 300, all it takes is ONE piece of objective, empirical evidence to exonerate. On the flipside, objective, empirical evidence can also result in a conviction. That's how much stronger objetive, empirical evidence is over subjective claims or "experiences."

I never said that that was all it takes to satisfy me. No single individual piece of evidence is likely to satisfy me. 

You do seem to give particular credence to subjective forms of evidence.

 However, a single person's experience or testimony can be part of a body of evidence that is compelling in its totality. 

And that entire body of subjective evidence can be refuted, or collaborated, by 1 piece of objective, empirical evidence.

How does your explanation account for scientists and mathematicians that believe in God?

It doesn't. And it won't. You'll see.

TiG @2.3 ☞ Scientists (and mathematicians, et. al.) are still human beings who might find comfort in beliefs that are yet to be substantiated with evidence.    

Given there is no proof (scientific or otherwise) that there is no sentient creator, there really is nothing logical or factual preventing a scientist (for example) from believing that there might be a sentient creator.

The key, however, is that the belief is not based on facts and logic.   People kid ourselves all the time;  often to bring comfort.

There you go.

You just invented your own notions of other people's thought processes and beliefs. You also make your own assumption about God and assume all of your guesses/beliefs to be true. Then you'll turn around and declare that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

And yet again, nothing but unsubstantiated personal allegations and meta.   

Got anything to say about the debate or should I expect nothing but derails and derogatory personal allegations?

And yet again, nothing but unsubstantiated personal allegations and meta.

That's simply not true. I gave my analysis on the content of your comment. Rather than answer, you are going to claim your are being attacked. It's ridiculous.

Never stops, eh?   What is this now, the 6th comment from you in a row that is all meta?   I am asking you to actually engage on the topic and you simply return with personal meta on each thread.

No, every time I discuss the topic and point out a flaw in your argument, you accuse me of making it personal. You are the only one derailing the conversation with your whining about personal attacks. If you really think I’m out of line, then by all means flag the comment. Otherwise, get back to the topic.

Still, pure meta.

You also make your own assumption about God and assume all of your guesses/beliefs to be true.

Isn't that what most people do regarding god? Isn't that was religion itself does, make assumptions about god/s? Certainly no one or no religion can actually know or fully understand almighty deities.

Then you'll turn around and declare that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

It's not disagreeing that's irrational (although, disagreeing with TiG certainly is ). But believing in something, especially as fact or truth, when there is no evidence, is irrational.

Isn't that was religion itself does, make assumptions about god/s?

Of course it does! Just look at religious iconography! It's obvious that the artists imbued human characteristics onto their icons based on their assumptions on what their god/gods looked like

Sure.   Is it okay if I summarize because the accumulated knowledge is vast (and I certainly cannot articulate all of the details)?

Our universe emerged from a singularity of unknown nature and as the result of an unknown event.   It is hypothesized that the event was a chain reaction resulting from quantum fluctuations, but science simply does not know.    However, from the first 10⁻⁴³ seconds (the Planck epoch) onward, science has formal mathematical models showing the rapid expansion of space-time and the formation from an incredible uniform plasma (basically pure energy) to the formation of fundamental forces, the cooling down and formation of hydrogen atoms, then the coalescing of gases into stars and with gravity the production of heavier elements on to super novas and the production of even heavier elements that are then dispersed into space to coalesce into planets and other cosmological bodies.

As for mankind, it is hypothesized that life emerged on earth abiogenesis but this is still hypothetical.   While there has been plenty of research indicating ways in which the primitive factors of life (e.g. amino acids) could form from primordial conditions, science is far from offering an explanation with typical scientific confidence.   However, there is an abundance of explanations for how life evolved from single-cell organisms to complex organisms such as human beings.   

I can point you to where I already answered that (it is right there in the quote you provided):

TiG @2.4.11 ☞ It is hypothesized that the event was a chain reaction resulting from quantum fluctuations, but science simply does not know.

So you don't know, you can't prove anything, so how can you make the case the God does not exist. 

I do not make the case that God (if you define as 'sentient creator') does not exist.

Where do you see me making that case?

I routinely note that it is possible that a sentient creator exists.    So what are you referring to?

For example, even in this major thread:

TiG @2.3.7 ☞ Belief in a sentient creator is perfectly rational if the believer recognizes that the belief is speculative.    

Define "scientist" 

Social "scientists" are completely different than scientific method scientists who haven't been bought-and-sold by monied interests. 

As an example, the fossil fuel industry paid anthropogenic global warming deniers who tended to be in their 80s, long retired from actual science and deeply in debt.

The head-hunters at the Heartland Institute are good at recruiting starving geriatric ex scientists to promote their propaganda and who just don't want to die broke.

Won't be believing anybody who takes fossil fuel industry money...… ever.

What does evidence have to do with anything?  Statistical outliers exist.  But statistics has developed a specialized methodology to dismiss and ignore statistical outliers.  The outliers provide direct evidence of the existence of possibilities that do not conform to probability.  And the nature of statistical outliers is that they do not follow a pattern or trend; explaining one outlier doesn't provide an explanation for all outliers.  The statistical methodology establishes a confirmation bias that favors probability and justifies dismissing and ignoring the evidence provided by statistical outliers.

Demanding evidence is one thing.  But a confirmation bias doesn't justify dismissing and ignoring evidence.  

Sure, one statistical outlier is that you are a Boltzmann brain and that everything you perceive is simply the product of your imagination.   

Best to try one's best to believe that which is true (and that means using good evidence and reason) and avoid believing that which is not true (basically anything that one can imagine).

Sure, one statistical outlier is that you are a Boltzmann brain and that everything you perceive is simply the product of your imagination.   

Is that explanation based upon evidence?  Does available evidence to support that explanation conform to probability?

Best to try one's best to believe that which is true (and that means using good evidence and reason) and avoid believing that which is not true (basically anything that one can imagine).

Outliers are good evidence; outliers just don't conform to probability or predictability.

Is that explanation based upon evidence?  Does available evidence to support that explanation conform to probability?

Nerm, do you not accept the notion that the Boltzmann brain notion is wild speculation and thus a statistical outlier?    I intentionally picked a truly wild ass idea that clearly is an outlier and still you want to debate it.   

Outliers are good evidence; ...

What is that supposed to mean?

Nerm, do you not accept the notion that the Boltzmann brain notion is wild speculation and thus a statistical outlier?    I intentionally picked a truly wild ass idea that clearly is an outlier and still you want to debate it.   

And I asked if that speculation was based on evidence.  The topic of the seed is about evidence of the existence of God.  So, doesn't all speculative examples need to satisfy that criteria?

What is that supposed to mean?

Outliers definitely exist; therefore, outliers are evidence.  My point is that confirmation biases also include dismissing and ignoring evidence.  The demand for evidence isn't as important as the seeded article implies.  Confirmation biases exert greater influence than does available evidence.

My point is that confirmation biases also include dismissing and ignoring evidence.  The demand for evidence isn't as important as the seeded article implies.  Confirmation biases exert greater influence than does available evidence.

Evidence is critical to support the idea that something actually exists.   In this case we are talking about the grandest possible sentient entity (God) who is held to exist yet there is no evidence supporting this belief.

This is arguably the greatest claim one can make and it has been made (in many forms) for thousands of years yet with all the religious people throughout history who desperately wanted to substantiate the claim with sound evidence, none have been able to do so.

Imagine the difference between what we have now:  greatest possible claim and no evidence to that claim being supported by sound evidence.

In this case we are talking about the grandest possible sentient entity (God) who is held to exist yet there is no evidence supporting this belief.

I'll also apply that to lesser gods too. There is no evidence that any such God or gods exist. The best we have is evidence that people believe in God/s.

Evidence is critical to support the idea that something actually exists.   In this case we are talking about the grandest possible sentient entity (God) who is held to exist yet there is no evidence supporting this belief.

This is arguably the greatest claim one can make and it has been made (in many forms) for thousands of years yet with all the religious people throughout history who desperately wanted to substantiate the claim with sound evidence, none have been able to do so.

Imagine the difference between what we have now:  greatest possible claim and no evidence to that claim being supported by sound evidence.

That is a demand for evidence of corporeal existence.  That demand is premised upon the idea that existence is a product of the corporeal universe.  There wasn't existence before the universe came into being.

Overcoming the corporeal limitation of existence requires defining existence as all that is.  But recognizing the existence of what is requires experiencing that existence in some manner.  Declaring that those who have experienced God in some manner as being merely irrational refutes defining existence as all that is.  A demand for corporeal evidence imposes a corporeal limitation on existence.

You can't have both ways.  People who have experienced God in some manner are evidence of what is; therefore, God definitely exists.  If the demand is for corporeal evidence then the universe emerged from nothing because existence is a product of the corporeal universe coming into being and God cannot exist.

Which is it?  Is existence defined is everything that is or is existence defined as corporeal presence in space and time?  Confirmation bias will determine whether or not God exists.

There wasn't existence before the universe came into being.

What makes you think that the universe is the same as existence itself?   That logically would mean that something emerged from nothing which is impossible by definition of the word 'nothing'.

Declaring that those who have experienced God in some manner as being merely irrational refutes defining existence as all that is. 

I did not claim that those who believe they have experienced God are necessarily irrational.   The belief is unsupported by evidence.   It is thus wishful thinking or speculation to an observer until the person with the experience can offer evidence to the observer.

A demand for corporeal evidence imposes a corporeal limitation on existence.

If a human being has direct evidence of God then clearly a corporeal interaction has occurred.

You can't have both ways. 

Exactly my point .    You want to claim that people have relationships with God and also claim that these relationships can never be evidenced because they are 'supernatural'.   

People who have experienced God in some manner are evidence of what is; therefore, God definitely exists. 

So, by that reasoning, those who claim to be abducted by aliens are evidence of alien abductions?

If the demand is for corporeal evidence then the universe emerged from nothing because existence is a product of the corporeal universe coming into being and God cannot exist.

What?

Which is it?  Is existence defined is everything that is or is existence defined as corporeal presence in space and time?  

Existence is that which is.   That is how I defined it.  You have been trying to change my definition this entire post.

Confirmation bias will determine whether or not God exists.

What?

Exactly my point .    You want to claim that people have relationships with God and also claim that these relationships can never be evidenced because they are 'supernatural'.   

No, that is incorrect.  The relationship with God is the evidence of what is.  Additional evidence isn't required unless existence is limited to a corporeal presence in space and time.  Existence outside of corporeal presence is supernatural.  

Existence is that which is.   That is how I defined it.  You have been trying to change my definition this entire post.

If existence is defined as everything that is then how can someone experience what is not?  Those who have experienced God are the evidence that God is; therefore, God exists.

The relationship with God is the evidence of what is. 

What does that mean?   The claimed relationship is evidence of the claimed relationship??

Additional evidence isn't required unless existence is limited to a corporeal presence in space and time.  Existence outside of corporeal presence is supernatural.  

You appear to be arguing that evidence is not required to support a claim of having a relationship with a supernatural entity.   So I could simply claim to have a relationship with a magical creature in the 10^th dimension and I bear no burden of evidence?

Your comments are making no sense to me.

You appear to be arguing that evidence is not required to support a claim of having a relationship with a supernatural entity.

No, I am stating that experiencing God is the evidence of what is.  How can anyone experience what is not?  How can anyone have a relationship with what they do not experience?

Defining existence as everything that is cannot withstand a demand for corporeal evidence.

How can anyone experience what is not?

Imagination.

The relationship with God is the evidence of what is.

Evidence: noun - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Your comment is no different than someone saying "The belief I was abducted by aliens is the evidence of my abduction". Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it.

A persons belief that they have a relationship with some unproven deity contains zero evidence and 100% feelings. "Evidence" is something that can indicate validity to others. Belief, faith and feelings are not evidence, yet that is all anyone actually has of their relationship with what they want to believe is a god.

"If existence is defined as everything that is then how can someone experience what is not?  Those who have experienced God are the evidence that God is; therefore, God exists."

"If being abducted by aliens is defined as someone being taken from the planet and probed by creatures not of this earth, then how can someone be abducted by what is not?  Those who believe they've been abducted are the evidence that aliens are real; therefore, aliens exist."

That's what your logic sounds like to anyone with more than half a brain.

No, I am stating that experiencing God is the evidence of what is.  How can anyone experience what is not?  How can anyone have a relationship with what they do not experience?

Does a child's relationship with Santa Claus count as evidence that the relationship exists?   Is it then evidence that Santa Claus exists?

Defining existence as everything that is cannot withstand a demand for corporeal evidence.

Rephrase.

Imagination.

Or drugs. Delusions. Psychological disorders such as hallucinations, ect..

Our existence is what human beings are capable of perceiving , what occupies our consciousness. 

This is also called nature. Is there anything "super" nature (beyond nature) ? I dont think we know the answer to that. 

"gods" are cultural expressions of human beings. 

If God exists, it would exist with or without the existence of human beings. 

"gods" are cultural expressions of human beings. 

I agree.   The evidence suggests that.

"gods" are cultural expressions of human beings. 

This much is certain. I even touched on that point in the article.

If God exists, it would exist with or without the existence of human beings. 

If you're talking about a separate entity, then yes. But that is also a big "if" and there is nothing to suggest it does.

Imagination.

What distinguishes between imagination and revelation?

Evidence: noun - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Your comment is no different than someone saying "The belief I was abducted by aliens is the evidence of my abduction". Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it.

A persons belief that they have a relationship with some unproven deity contains zero evidence and 100% feelings. "Evidence" is something that can indicate validity to others. Belief, faith and feelings are not evidence, yet that is all anyone actually has of their relationship with what they want to believe is a god.

Except that's not what I am saying.  What I said is defining existence as everything that is requires that what is must be experienced in some manner to recognize existence.  Experiencing what is provides evidence.

We cannot recognize existence without experiencing that existence in some manner.  Broadening the meaning of existence also broadens the type of evidence that permits recognizing what exists.  Going back to my original comment @4, defining existence as everything that is includes the outliers.  Outliers exist; outliers are evidence of possibilities that do not conform to probability.  Using statistical methods to dismiss and ignore outliers doesn't not alter their existence.  The statistical confirmation bias favors probability.

"If being abducted by aliens is defined as someone being taken from the planet and probed by creatures not of this earth, then how can someone be abducted by what is not?  Those who believe they've been abducted are the evidence that aliens are real; therefore, aliens exist." That's what your logic sounds like to anyone with more than half a brain.

Defining existence as everything that is would allow that experiencing aliens in some manner is evidence that aliens exist.  

Lack of corporeal evidence would only indicate that the aliens are not corporeal.  But experiencing aliens in some manner would be evidence that aliens exist.

Defining existence as everything that is and then requiring corporeal evidence as proof of existence is a logical fallacy.

Which is it?  Is existence everything that is?  Or is existence a corporeal presence in space and time?  It's necessary to understand the meaning of existence before it is possible to determine what exists.

Does a child's relationship with Santa Claus count as evidence that the relationship exists?   Is it then evidence that Santa Claus exists?

Lack of corporeal evidence only indicates that Santa Claus is not corporeal.  Defining existence as everything that is also means that lack of corporeal evidence does not refute the existence of Santa Claus.  Defining existence as everything that is would require more than corporeal evidence.

How existence is defined can also determine the existence of God.  Claiming that existence is everything that is while also claiming that lack of corporeal evidence refutes the existence of God would be an exercise in irrationality.

Which is it?  Is existence everything that is?  Or is existence a corporeal presence in space and time?  

"gods" are cultural expressions of human beings. 

That description may be incomplete.  A more complete description would be "gods" are cultural expressions of what human beings have experienced.  

People have experienced something.  And apparently that experience has been shared by a number of people.  An experience shared by a number of people constitutes a body of evidence.  A body of evidence becomes knowledge.

If God exists, it would exist with or without the existence of human beings. 

Which doesn't provide illumination for the question at hand.  Does science exist?  And would science exist without humans?

Science constitutes a body of evidence and that body of evidence is knowledge.  But does science exist as an independent entity or does science exist as a human construct?  Does the distinction between an independent entity and a human construct really change the existence of science?

A more complete description would be "gods" are cultural expressions of what human beings have experienced.  

Or that's what humans have claimed to experience.

People have experienced something.  And apparently that experience has been shared by a number of people.  An experience shared by a number of people constitutes a body of evidence.  A body of evidence becomes knowledge.

Such experiences are subjective and anecdotal, with many factors that might influence how or why they have such an "experience."

Does science exist?  

Science is just a process and body of knowledge humans have developed and acquired.

Science constitutes a body of evidence and that body of evidence is knowledge.  

Science accumulates evidence through the scientific method. The evidence establishes a degree of certainty and validity to a scientific idea.

But does science exist as an independent entity or does science exist as a human construct?

How can science be an independent entity?

How existence is defined can also determine the existence of God. 

That depends on how one defines god.

Verifiable evidence.

People have experienced something.  And apparently that experience has been shared by a number of people.  An experience shared by a number of people constitutes a body of evidence.  A body of evidence becomes knowledge.

No, it becomes an anecdote. Think of all the people who claim they have seen evidence of the afterlife when they experienced a near-death situation. Yet science has now determined what really causes those - and it has nothing to do with them getting a glimpse of heaven or anything supernatural.

Or that's what humans have claimed to experience.

Going back to my original comment @4, a single claim would be an outlier indicating a possibility.  But a number of claims would constitute a body of evidence that indicates a probability.  The larger the body of evidence, the greater the probability.

Science is just a process and body of knowledge humans have developed and acquired.

But does science exist?

Science accumulates evidence through the scientific method. The evidence establishes a degree of certainty and validity to a scientific idea.

The scientific method is nothing more than making observations and utilizing deductive logic to explain what has been observed.  Empirical testing (and refutation) of deduced explanations wasn't incorporated into the methodology before the 17th century.  The inclusion of empirical testing restricts the scientific method to corporeal existence.

The scientific method cannot explain everything that is; the scientific method only explains everything that is corporeal.

How can science be an independent entity?

Science is human observation and explanation of reality.  But is evidence and knowledge a result of that observation and explanation?  Or is evidence and knowledge an intrinsic property that establishes reality independent of observation and explanation?

Are humans creating knowledge or are humans harvesting knowledge?  Does the distinction between creating knowledge and harvesting knowledge alter the existence of knowledge?

That depends on how one defines god.

The many people, over many thousands of years and across many cultures, who have experienced God in some manner provides a large body of evidence that indicates there is God.

If existence is defined as everything that is then the large body of evidence indicates that God definitely exists.

If existence is defined by corporeal evidence then the lack of corporeal evidence indicates God does not exist.

Whether or not God exists depends upon how existence is defined.  However, the large body of evidence obtained over thousands of years and across many cultures indicates there is God.  

Lack of corporeal evidence only indicates that Santa Claus is not corporeal.  Defining existence as everything that is also means that lack of corporeal evidence does not refute the existence of Santa Claus.  Defining existence as everything that is would require more than corporeal evidence.

I asked: "Does a child's relationship with Santa Claus count as evidence that the relationship exists?   Is it then evidence that Santa Claus exists?".   The above is what you have posed as an 'answer'.   Do you not recognize that Santa Claus is defined as corporeal?    You deflected from the question.   Are you going to answer it?

Is existence everything that is? 

Yes.   Existence = all that exists = the opposite of nothing.    If there is a spiritual god then that spiritual (non-corporeal) god would exist.   No need to complicate a basic idea.   Oxford offers:  'All that exists.' as one of its usages.   I would go with that:  something either exists or it does not exist.   

We cannot recognize existence without experiencing that existence in some manner.

What our bio-electric brains are able to experience though our senses and corporeal body is the only existence anyone can reliably prove. Just because someone dreams they are a God, does that make one a God? Just because someone claims to have a personal experience of a God, does that prove they actually have come in contact with the divine?

"Using statistical methods to dismiss and ignore outliers doesn't not alter their existence."

True. So why do so many believers dismiss any possibility for existence other than their preferred "God" theory simply by claiming life originating on its own is a statistical impossibility?

"Lack of corporeal evidence would only indicate that the aliens are not corporeal.  But experiencing aliens in some manner would be evidence that aliens exist."

Lack of corporeal evidence indicates that aliens do not exist, not that they are incorporeal. While there is a possibility they exist and have abducted humans, the fact that there is no corporeal evidence and just peoples personal experiences makes it more probable that those experiences were internally generated, not externally. We know that human experience is flawed at best. We can't even trust eye witness testimony because the brain is a very tricky thing. You believe you saw something, and can believe wholeheartedly that it happened, yet the facts (and in criminal justice the DNA) may show it did not. Our brains lie to us all the time. I work in insurance and if I had a dollar for every time someone filing a claim said "And they came out of nowhere" I'd be a wealthy man. The fact is, the other vehicle they pulled out in front of didn't come out of nowhere, it was right there, their brain just lied to them because they didn't expect to see it and were likely distracted. But the resulting damage proves the vehicle was there.

This world has many things that can distort and change our memories and experiences, from drugs, alcohol, plants, mushrooms, even the air itself can effect our perception of reality. Go too high up a mountain and deprive your brain of oxygen or be exposed to some invisible gas or carbon monoxide and the brain can see and experience all sorts of things that aren't real. The brain wants to put the input from our senses into context and to do so it can even wipe our memories of horrific or painful experiences or lock them away in some recess of the brain.

Trusting our brains impression based on our senses and relying on it to claim incorporeal beings or some spirit realm exist is foolish. Belief in something doesn't make it true, no matter how much the brain wants it to be. Even the bible admits this when it says "The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable--who can understand it?" - Jeremiah 17:9

The "heart" or human brain where the seat of our subconscious resides, will lie to us and tell us what we want to hear. If you want there to be a God who saves you and your loved ones, then your brain will lead you to that experience, you will find a faith and a God to fulfill your wish. It's why so many humans on this planet turn to some religion or another to find solace in this universe they desperately want to understand their place in. Each religion tells a different tale, and has a different God or gods, and most are contradictory of each other so they can't all be true. Yet the believers of each are so invested in their lie that they would sacrifice their own lives in defense of their version of reality. It's why so many wars and so many millions of humans have died throughout the centuries, one side saying they are right and their God gave them the land or assets they desire, and the other side making the same claim. Funny how their Gods all seem to want what their humans want. Money, power, land, all the things a universal creator would have no need for, yet their supposed followers proclaim their own desires are that of their deity thus justifying anything, even genocide, in their Gods name.

"Is existence everything that is?"

There is no evidence of any other existence, so this corporeal one is all we have unless someone can prove otherwise.

"It's necessary to understand the meaning of existence before it is possible to determine what exists"

Yet inventing your own meanings without evidence simply creates fantasy. You may enjoy living in your own fantasy, and that's fine, believe however you want. But don't bother claiming there is evidence of some incorporeal existence that changes our corporeal one unless you can actually provide some.

No, it becomes an anecdote. Think of all the people who claim they have seen evidence of the afterlife when they experienced a near-death situation. Yet science has now determined what really causes those - and it has nothing to do with them getting a glimpse of heaven or anything supernatural.

Science cannot explain an afterlife.  And the scientific method cannot declare an explanation valid without empirical testing.

If science had determined cause then science can replicate the experience under controlled conditions.  Without corporeal evidence, the explanations are more theological than scientific.

The difference between the theological method and the scientific method is controlled empirical testing.  Both methods make observations and develop explanations using deductive logic.  Theology doesn't utilize controlled empirical testing to validate explanations.

Theology is closer to Plato's or Aristotle's philosophical methodology depending upon reason and logical deduction without controlled empirical validation.  That shouldn't be surprising since theology is as old as philosophy and much older than science.

Science is the result of practical craft, once known as alchemy.  Alchemy depended upon empirical testing more than reason; the proof was the empirical result.  Alchemists conducted controlled tests and then attempted to explain the results.  But the empirical result was obviously corporeal which limited alchemy to corporeal existence.

Claiming that science explains a near death experience is little different than ancient alchemists explaining experimental results with the philosopher's stone (which typically consisted of mercury and its chemical compounds).  Science can only provide corporeal explanations for corporeal observations.  Science cannot explain everything that is; science can only explain everything that is corporeal.

Claiming that science explains a near death experience is little different than ancient alchemists explaining experimental results with the philosopher's stone

You've clearly never bothered to read the research, which doesn't surprise me. Logic and facts don't work on people who really want to believe in the supernatural.

I asked: "Does a child's relationship with Santa Claus count as evidence that the relationship exists?   Is it then evidence that Santa Claus exists?".   The above is what you have posed as an 'answer'.   Do you not recognize that Santa Claus is defined as corporeal?    You deflected from the question.   Are you going to answer it?

It's not the relationship; it is the experience that is evidence.  By defining existence as everything that is; experiencing what is provides evidence of existence.

Coloring the experience with terms like imagination or delusion doesn't change the fact that the experience is real.  The experience is evidence that Santa Claus is real.  Claiming that accepting the reality of Santa Claus is a belief or faith doesn't alter that the reality of Santa Claus is based upon evidence.

But does Santa Claus exist?  Does whether or not Santa Claus exists change the reality of Santa Claus?  If the evidence of experience indicates Santa Claus is real then shouldn't that evidence allow us to accept the reality of Santa Claus?

We don't convince children that Santa Claus is fiction by calling their acceptance irrational.  We change their understanding of evidence.  We introduce corporeal requirements onto evidence.  We convince children that what they experience does not exist because what they experience is not corporeal.  We train our children that material existence defines reality.

And then, as our children grow, we expect them to think outside the box we used to confine their thinking.

You've clearly never bothered to read the research, which doesn't surprise me. Logic and facts don't work on people who really want to believe in the supernatural.

Logic and facts, alone, is religion.  Relying on only on logic and facts, as did Plato and Aristotle, is the basis for theology.

A science that depends upon observations and logical deduction, alone, is a religion.  Just because science does not accept the reality of God only means that science is a Godless religion.  There are examples of other Godless religions.

What our bio-electric brains are able to experience though our senses and corporeal body is the only existence anyone can reliably prove. Just because someone dreams they are a God, does that make one a God? Just because someone claims to have a personal experience of a God, does that prove they actually have come in contact with the divine?

Yes.  The experience is real.  The experience is evidence.  Accepting the reality of what we experience is based upon evidence.

But does what we experience exist?  Does whether or not what we experience exist change the reality of what we experience?

True. So why do so many believers dismiss any possibility for existence other than their preferred "God" theory simply by claiming life originating on its own is a statistical impossibility?

Life, itself, is a statistical improbability yet life exists.  God is a statistical improbability so why does that refute the existence of God?  The only distinction between the statistical improbability of life and the statistical improbability of God is corporeal evidence. 

What happens if life is the corporeal evidence of God?  

Yet inventing your own meanings without evidence simply creates fantasy. You may enjoy living in your own fantasy, and that's fine, believe however you want. But don't bother claiming there is evidence of some incorporeal existence that changes our corporeal one unless you can actually provide some.

I am not inventing a meaning for existence.  What I've said is that the definition of existence determines whether or not God exists.

If existence is defined as everything that is then those who have experienced God provide evidence there is God and God exists.

If existence is defined by corporeal evidence than the lack of corporeal evidence indicates that God does not exist.

Does whether or not God exist change the reality of God?  Is the question of God's existence meaningful?

Nevermind.

If existence is defined as everything that is then those who have experienced God provide evidence there is God and God exists.

By that reasoning, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and every creature ever imagined exist since someone thought of them and defined them in corporeal terms. Fat, white beard, red suit, all are corporeal definitions for an imaginary being. Just because someone imagines they interacted with a fantasy creature or God does not mean that fantasy creature or God exists.

If existence is defined by corporeal evidence than the lack of corporeal evidence indicates that God does not exist.

That is the only way we can define anything. All the fantasy creatures, even God, is defined in corporeal terms, white beard, male, definitions from our corporeal existence.

Does whether or not God exist change the reality of God?

Yes, if God exists then it definitely changes the "reality" of God. If it doesn't exist, then that too makes a huge impact on reality. People waiting around for their God to come save them will never be saved, they will die on their knees deep in prayer trying to communicate telepathically with a being that does not exist.

Is the question of God's existence meaningful?

Definitely. If God exists and we are all its creation, then our meaning and purpose is defined by it. If God does not exist, then we must find our own meaning and purpose in this life.

What happens if life is the corporeal evidence of God?

If life is the corporeal evidence, then there would be some calculable effect that could be attributed to that God. If there is no calculable effect but there is a God, then it would mean that God does not interact with its corporeal creation in any way. We can detect planets circling other stars now because we can measure the effects those planets have on the light escaping that star and reaching us. If some all powerful creator exists and interacts with its creation then there would be some evidence of that interaction. If there is not interaction then what's the point of believing or praying if doing so has no effect on this existence? If there is some effect on some other existence then its not one that we have any evidence of so why worry about some fantasy heaven, hell, purgatory, Valhalla or Nirvana? Why assume that you must act a certain way in this existence in order to get to or avoid some other unproven existence? It's like a shitty "Let's Make A Deal" gameshow where you have to bet all your Sundays for life to get whatever's behind door number 2, but you can't find out what's behind door number 2 till you die so no one living will ever know if there's a prize back there or not.

( such patience )     

But a number of claims would constitute a body of evidence that indicates a probability.  The larger the body of evidence, the greater the probability.

An argumentum ad populum. It's not the claim or the number of claims. It's how evidence backs up the claim.

But does science exist?

How do you define science?

The scientific method is nothing more than making observations and utilizing deductive logic to explain what has been observed.  Empirical testing (and refutation) of deduced explanations wasn't incorporated into the methodology before the 17th century.  

That's one reason to take findings and claims, especially those presented as fact, with a grain of salt.

The inclusion of empirical testing restricts the scientific method to corporeal existence.

When you have evidence of something outside of corporeal existence, then get back to me.

the scientific method only explains everything that is corporeal.

See previous statement.

The scientific method cannot explain everything that is;

The SM is the best means to explain anything.

But is evidence and knowledge a result of that observation and explanation?  Or is evidence and knowledge an intrinsic property that establishes reality independent of observation and explanation?

Evidence and knowledge is what is obtained from scientific inquiry.

Are humans creating knowledge or are humans harvesting knowledge?  Does the distinction between creating knowledge and harvesting knowledge alter the existence of knowledge?

It seems as if you're trying to dig too deep into something. While you may want to engage in philosophical debate, remember what Dr. Sigmund Freud once said: "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar,"

The many people, over many thousands of years and across many cultures, who have experienced God in some manner provides a large body of evidence that indicates there is God.

All subjective and anecdotal as well as another argumentum ad populum. It also doesn't address my statement of how god is defined.

If existence is defined as everything that is then the large body of evidence indicates that God definitely exists.

That's just an assumption god exists. There is nothing to indicate that being the case.

If existence is defined by corporeal evidence then the lack of corporeal evidence indicates God does not exist.

Another assumption: something outside corporeal.

Whether or not God exists depends upon how existence is defined.  

Or how god is defined.

However, the large body of evidence obtained over thousands of years and across many cultures indicates there is God.  

No, that's just evidence people believed there's a god. Not that there is actually a god. Big difference.

By that reasoning, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and every creature ever imagined exist since someone thought of them and defined them in corporeal terms. Fat, white beard, red suit, all are corporeal definitions for an imaginary being. Just because someone imagines they interacted with a fantasy creature or God does not mean that fantasy creature or God exists.

Which deliberately confuses the act of creation with experiencing creation.  The claim is that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and every creature ever imagined are creations.  Toddlers must be amazing since they exhibit such powers of creation.

Toddlers don't imagine reality.  Toddlers experience reality and draw conclusions based on the evidence of experience.  Toddlers utilize a pure form of logic that is untainted with knowledge.  Toddlers are presented with facts and deduce conclusions without the constraints of corporeal existence.

That is the only way we can define anything. All the fantasy creatures, even God, is defined in corporeal terms, white beard, male, definitions from our corporeal existence.

Defining existence with corporeal evidence explains why science is an unreliable tool.  Corporeal evidence is the box we use to constrain the logic of toddlers.  And the evidence is conditional upon circumstance.  There isn't universal evidence because we simply cannot observe everything that is.  Science cannot answer all questions.  So, science alters reality to fit into it's corporeal box.

Yes, if God exists then it definitely changes the "reality" of God. If it doesn't exist, then that too makes a huge impact on reality. People waiting around for their God to come save them will never be saved, they will die on their knees deep in prayer trying to communicate telepathically with a being that does not exist.

That conclusion requires that humans create their own reality; again deliberately confusing the act of creation with experiencing creation.  Reality doesn't change because of human explanations.  The only change is how humans experience reality.  Anthropocentric reality isn't any different than geocentric cosmology.  Humans placing Earth at the center of the universe did not change reality; just because Aristotle got it wrong hasn't established some sort of existential crisis of reality.

Definitely. If God exists and we are all its creation, then our meaning and purpose is defined by it. If God does not exist, then we must find our own meaning and purpose in this life.

If God is corporeal and we are God's creation then reality doesn't change.  If God is a fiction and we emerged in spite of statistical improbability then reality doesn't change.

Knowing how life began will not change reality.  That knowledge would prove nothing and refute nothing; reality wouldn't be changed by that knowledge.

If life is the corporeal evidence, then there would be some calculable effect that could be attributed to that God. If there is no calculable effect but there is a God, then it would mean that God does not interact with its corporeal creation in any way. We can detect planets circling other stars now because we can measure the effects those planets have on the light escaping that star and reaching us. If some all powerful creator exists and interacts with its creation then there would be some evidence of that interaction. If there is not interaction then what's the point of believing or praying if doing so has no effect on this existence? If there is some effect on some other existence then its not one that we have any evidence of so why worry about some fantasy heaven, hell, purgatory, Valhalla or Nirvana? Why assume that you must act a certain way in this existence in order to get to or avoid some other unproven existence? It's like a shitty "Let's Make A Deal" gameshow where you have to bet all your Sundays for life to get whatever's behind door number 2, but you can't find out what's behind door number 2 till you die so no one living will ever know if there's a prize back there or not.

Or we could accept the logical conclusion that there is Santa Claus and go on with our lives.  

Galileo wasn't imprisoned because he threatened the Church.  Galileo threatened Aristotelian science.  The Church had incorporated that science into its theology.  Galileo demonstrated that science is fallible and the Church is gullible.  Thousands of years before Galileo, stone age religious freaks had warned of the dangers of eating fruit from the tree of knowledge.  And the Church had not heeded that warning and used science to create its own reality.  

The fallible leading the gullible is not a good idea.

The claim is that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and every creature ever imaged are creations.  Toddlers must be amazing since they exhibit such powers of creation.

You can't really be that daft, toddlers do none of the "creation", that is done purely by adults who create the fantasies and carelessly force feed them to their trusting children.

Toddlers experience reality and draw conclusions based on the evidence of experience.

Toddlers experience the reality their parents and peers manufacture for them. It can take decades to rid themselves of the vile indoctrination of religious fantasy, and sadly most are never able to extricate such blatant fiction from their lives.

Toddlers utilize a pure form of logic that is untainted with knowledge.

Yeah no. Toddlers are forced to "utilize" whatever their parents and peers force feed them, there is zero "logic" involved.

Toddlers are presented with facts and deduce conclusions without the constraints of corporeal existence.

Ah yes, the "facts" of Santa Claus, the "facts" of the Easter Bunny. Do you even listen to yourself? What utter nonsense.

Defining existence with corporeal evidence explains why science is an unreliable tool.

That's one of the most moronic statements I've ever heard. Science is the only reliable evidence we have, everything else is supposition, fantasy and fiction.

Science cannot answer all questions.

Science has yet to answer all questions, there is no evidence that science "cannot" answer all questions.

That conclusion requires that humans create their own reality

More unadulterated bullshit. Humans are born into this reality, some just refuse to accept it by making up fantasies that self-aggrandize.

the Church is gullible

Finally, one thing we can agree on.

The fallible leading the gullible is not a good idea.

And yet that well describes every single religion on the planet. While science admits it doesn't know everything and is always willing to adopt a better understanding of our universe based on the evidence when it is discovered, religion claims infallibility until it gets pummeled into submission by facts, logic and reason, and even then it tries to claim victory when their fantasy doctrines clearly fail.

You can't really be that daft, toddlers do none of the "creation", that is done purely by adults who create the fantasies and carelessly force feed them to their trusting children.

Resorting to insults only emphasizes intellectual incapacity to follow the facts with logic.  Protecting a confirmation bias with such emotional tactics provides no illumination or knowledge.

Logically the existence or non-existence of God will have no effect on reality.  The argument appears to be about exerting control over human interpretation of reality rather than attempting to understand human experience of reality.

And yet that well describes every single religion on the planet. While science admits it doesn't know everything and is always willing to adopt a better understanding of our universe based on the evidence when it is discovered, religion claims infallibility until it gets pummeled into submission by facts, logic and reason, and even then it tries to claim victory when their fantasy doctrines clearly fail.

I can create a mathematical expression that follows the logic of mathematics.  The expression can be empirically tested to verify conformity with the logic of mathematics.  The expression will generate an interesting graph of data.

Y = (X/pi) + sin(X) - (log(X)/sin(X))

The question is how Y behaves when Y is described by the mathematical expression.  The mathematical description of Y is a fact supported by logic and reason.  Is the mathematical expression science? 

Is Y corporeal?  Does Y exist?  Does Y describe reality?  

What is the difference between mathematics and theology?

I can create a mathematical expression that follows the logic of mathematics.  The expression can be empirically tested to verify conformity with the logic of mathematics.  The expression will generate an interesting graph of data. Y = (X/pi) + sin(X) - (log(X)/sin(X))

Now let's use the mathematical expression to describe God.  The expression can be empirically tested to verify conformity with Biblical theology.

God = First cause + ethics - life(death, afterlife)

Is God corporeal?  Does God exist?  Does God describe reality?

Answering those questions will not change reality in any way.  Arguing about the existence of Y or God accomplishes nothing of importance.  

What is the difference between mathematics and theology?

What is the difference between mathematics and theology?

Mathematics: the abstract science of number, quantity, and space

Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience

Listening to you talk in circles and pontificating about facts and reality when it's clear you have a grasp of neither has become tiresome. If patience was a four letter word, I'm all out of it to give. Please do go believe all you want, but like you claim, arguing with you about the existence of God is like a broken pencil, pointless. May you find the fantasy comfort you obviously seek. Personally, I'm fine not knowing our true origins till actual evidence is found and I trust science, exploration and discovery will be what eventually leads us to those answers, not some fat headed theologian talking out his ass.

Listening to you talk in circles and pontificating about facts and reality when it's clear you have a grasp of neither has become tiresome. If patience was a four letter word, I'm all out of it to give. Please do go believe all you want, but like you claim, arguing with you about the existence of God is like a broken pencil, pointless. May you find the fantasy comfort you obviously seek. Personally, I'm fine not knowing our true origins till actual evidence is found and I trust science, exploration and discovery will be what eventually leads us to those answers, not some fat headed theologian talking out his ass.

Claiming to listen and actually listening are two different things.

Yes, there aren't any demands for corporeal evidence to validate mathematics.  Mathematics is a self contained system of rules (and logic) that validates itself.  Testing conformity to the rules of mathematics provides the only evidence that is required.  Existence is not prerequisite for validating mathematics.

Corporeal evidence is required when mathematics is applied to corporeal existence.  Lack of corporeal evidence only refutes the application; mathematics is not refuted by lack of corporeal evidence.  

Theology is actually the abstract study of God.  Like mathematics, theology is a self contained system of rules (and logic) that validates itself.  Applying theology to corporeal existence results in religion, religious practices, and religious belief.  As with mathematics, lack of corporeal evidence refutes the application; lack of corporeal evidence does not refute theology.  Just keep in mind that the application of theology extends beyond corporeal existence.

It's possible to twist definitions and claim that theology is the study of God and religion.  But to be consistent, mathematics would need to be defined as the study of numbers (to be concise) and their application to corporeal existence.

This can only end badly - the way that these things always go around here. Is a different result expected? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

These debates are never about trying to convince the other side;  they are always about the dialectic process itself.

they are always about the dialectic process itself.

Isn't seeking the truth supposed to be the goal of dialectic? I never see that in these seeds. What I usually see is something along the lines of "your argument is invalid because I declare it to be so."

 I never see that in these seeds. What I usually see is something along the lines of "your argument is invalid because I declare it to be so."

Nothing of the sort. The article is simply an objective and rational analysis of the concept of god/s, including the liklihood of their existence. Nothing has been declared "because I said so."

Isn't seeking the truth supposed to be the goal of dialectic? 

Yes!   The idea is to challenge ideas to tease out the truth.

I never see that in these seeds. What I usually see is something along the lines of "your argument is invalid because I declare it to be so."

Then you are not looking very hard.    You never see an actual rebuttal argument??    You see no arguments in this article?  

I am clearly talking about the discussion, not the article. The discussion is where the arguments would be.

Then you are not looking very hard.

I see what I see. You don't have to agree with my conclusion. I think your judgment that I am not looking very hard is just your biased opinion in support of your own perspective.

What I see is personal meta with no attempt to actually focus on the debate.

What I see is personal

Yes, that is your tendency, unfortunately. When people insist on holding positions you don't like, you frequently see it as some kind of personal attack. In fact, all I have done is focus on the debate.

Not seeing any debate commentary, just more derogatory personal allegations.

just more derogatory personal allegation

Insisting on your false allegation repeatedly doesn’t make it any more true. It’s not true the 1st time or the 10th time. All you have to do is get back to topic. No one is stopping you from discussing the topic but you. However, every time you accuse me of making it personal just because you don’t like my perspective, I will deny it.

Yet again, pure meta.

I am clearly talking about the discussion, not the article.

Same difference really. It doesn't change my previous reply.

The discussion is where the arguments would be.

Considering some of the posts here, I'd say the arguments certainly are in the discussion.

Is a different result expected? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Hat: noun - a shaped covering for the head worn for warmth, as a fashion item, or as part of a uniform

Boot: noun - a sturdy item of footwear covering the foot, the ankle, and sometimes the leg below the knee

That guy is clearly wearing a hat. It is covering his head, not his feet, therefore it's a hat.

 “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

It seems the only ones doing the same thing and expecting different results are the believers who keep claiming there is evidence of their imagined deities, providing none, and then getting upset or frustrated that those listening don't just accept their unproven claims. Just because the entire crowd gathered around the naked Emperor are vociferously claiming his clothes are of the finest silk, the one child who steps forth and laughs saying "Mommy, that man is naked" is still the one who is right. It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how many people you get to say it, without empirical evidence one cannot expect everyone else to just accept their unproven claims.

Hmmm... Do God's exist??? I would have to say YES! Of course most of you would disagree with me and ask for evidence.  What if I told you the evidence exists right in front of your faces?  But first, I must explain what everyone expects of a God. They expect the God to be Powerful. Able to create or destroy on a whim. Someone who can take mere atoms and create something that did not exist prior to the Gods intervention. Someone who watches (or ignores) every move you make. Someone who will judge whether something you've done is right or wrong and either reward or punish you for your actions. 

Does that sound about right?

Okay, so if I can meet that set of criteria, would that mean that it is possible for Gods to exist?

Well, if you need an example of such a creature, look at the comments you are posting. YOU created them. Before you did they did not exist. YOU typed up your comment and posted it. It did not exist until you did. YOU created something via an electronic means that was nothing more than electrical impulses that you combined with atoms and created something from nothing with that comment. YOU know when you make your post whether or not YOU think it is the Right thing to do, or the Wrong thing to do. YOU have judged your action and deemed it appropriate.  YOU did this--no one and nothing else!  YOU have performed your OWN miracle. CONGRATULATIONS!

Ah, but some will say that is not enough to constitute proof, so let's instead create beings to rule over. Anyone here familiar with the Sim's game ? Now in that game YOU can create your own little world and decide EXACTLY what you want to happen. Catastrophes, growth, mutual attractions, right down to whether or not your characters have pets, kids, or whatever...  YOU decide their entire lives.  YOU are the God in the Sim's game!

So here each and everyone of you are--a God in some form or fashion. Whether it is just by having your own thoughts, transcribing them to a blog, or playing a AI game, you can meet the criteria for being a God set forth by our very own definition of the word God . And to think that we are such a young race (humans in general) and continue to expand our puny Powers with leaps and bounds on a daily basis. Where do you think we will be in another 100 years?  How about in a thousand? How about in 10,000? How about when a million years have gone by?  Do you seriously believe that with all that we have accomplished this far we will still be limited to our corporeal bodies? 

Or do you believe that we are all alone in this vast universe and that no other creatures closer to the center of the universe would have surpassed our own development to the point that they can create Life with a mere thought given millions of years of development and evolution ahead of us?  Or maybe they ARE corporeal beings that have developed technology that can do these things for them...kind of like how WE create another human life through fertilization of eggs and implanting them in surrogate mothers that never would have existed without our God-Like intervention. We are even on the edge of manipulating the human genome to the point of creating a perfect human free of defects of any kind! WOW!

And we are still infants in this vast universe...

This is why I routinely suggest that people agree on a clear definition of 'god'.   Then, and only then, proceed.   If the focus is on evidence, then with that definition of god, one would put forth evidence that a god per the definition exists.

This is why I routinely suggest that people agree on a clear definition of 'god'. 

Why do I have the feeling you will require everyone to agree with your definition. 

Maybe because you completely misunderstand how I operate.

I routinely ask people to define god.   Typically they do not.   I do not care how they define god.   What I care about is the reasoning supporting the claim that this god, as defined, exists.

I dont try to define God. By definition God is beyond our understanding. 

The only thing I find interesting about all these debates about God is when people try to explain sacred writings. 

"Religion" is a human creation, and the different religions are cultural expressions. They all refer to the same "God", but do so in different ways based on when and where they originated. 

A lot of atheists get hung up on "debating" the Bible, or the Koran, as if debunking these sacred texts will disprove the existence of God. 

I dont think the two are necessarily connected. 

Why does God allow suffering? 

Well, because it is the nature of this existence, without suffering there would be no joy. 

Why is this existence based on relativity and duality? We don't know, and probably will never know. 

I dont try to define God. By definition God is beyond our understanding. 

That makes no sense.   How can you even speak of God if you have no definition for the word?   After all, you could easily define God as 'sentient creator' and then note that God is beyond our understanding.   (That, by the way, is the definition I typically offer when people refuse to define 'god'.)

They all refer to the same "God", but do so in different ways based on when and where they originated. 

You consider the polytheist gods of Hindu to be the same as the Christian God?   Not sure how you reconcile that.

I dont try to define God. By definition God is beyond our understanding. 

Then how can one make a claim for a god or explain what god wants, does, acts, ect., as religions often describe if said god is beyond understanding?

The only thing I find interesting about all these debates about God is when people try to explain sacred writings. 

It should be clear that these writing are written by humans attempting to speak on behalf or explain something for which by definition is beyond understanding. That alone should give one pause when reviewing said writings.

 They all refer to the same "God", but do so in different ways based on when and where they originated. 

Demonstrably false. Many religions are polytheistic, without a singular god. The Abrahamistic religions refer to the same, singular "God."

A lot of atheists get hung up on "debating" the Bible, or the Koran, as if debunking these sacred texts will disprove the existence of God. 

Debunking them doesn't disprove god. But it does demonstrate the flaws in the writings, which brings their validity into question, especially where claims of god/s are made. This is especially apparent when logical inconsistencies are pointed out.

Well, because it is the nature of this existence, without suffering there would be no joy. 

Or perhaps the lack of suffering itself is joy.

Why is this existence based on relativity and duality? We don't know, and probably will never know.

Nope, probably not.

One of the traditional arguments for disbelief in God is "why would an all powerful, all loving God allow suffering". 

The most obvious answer is because duality is the nature of this existence. A  slightly different way to describe it is relativity. Everything that exists can be describes as being in relation to something else as we as human beings perceive it.  Without heat there would be no cold. Is a 60 degree temperature warm or cool?  The answer surely depends on the question "compared to what?"  It is warm compared to 30 degrees and cool compared to 90.   But it is the same 60 degrees either way. 

Everything is relative.  Is Mary happy today?  Compared to what? 

Suffering appears to be the result of comparing it to another state, joy.  If we didnt know what joy was, maybe suffering wouldnt seem so bad. 

I don't think we as human beings can ever understand just why we suffer pain, injury, losses, despair, etc, except that they are an essential part of this existence just as their opposites are. 

One of the traditional arguments for disbelief in God is "why would an all powerful, all loving God allow suffering". 

I can see how suffering can put people off to a god.

The most obvious answer is because duality is the nature of this existence. A  slightly different way to describe it is relativity. Everything that exists can be describes as being in relation to something else as we as human beings perceive it. 

That's immaterial if there's an all powerful god who can supposedly do anything.

Everything is relative.  Is Mary happy today?  Compared to what? 

Many believers think they'll go to Heaven when they die, where they won't experience suffering or pain. So how will they know they're happy?

Suffering appears to be the result of comparing it to another state, joy.  If we didnt know what joy was, maybe suffering wouldnt seem so bad. 

Suffering and joy are descriptions given to a state of being.

I don't think we as human beings can ever understand just why we suffer pain, injury, losses, despair, etc, except that they are an essential part of this existence just as their opposites are. 

Yes, but that seems independent as to whether there is a god or not.

You are quite consistent in trying to force everyone to accept your views about God.

I don't see TiG doing any such thing. He is simply pointing out that not every religion has the same idea about god.

To me God is the ultimate source of cause and effect in the universe.

That is just an opinion.

 "gods" depend on human beings for their "existence", God does not. 

How do you know this? You seem to be going by the assumption there's a god to begin with.

Is your Wikipedia quote an argument that Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion?   I ask because it is not clear what point you are trying to make.   Note, however:

The belief in, or worship of, many gods. It is not easy to count gods, and so not always obvious whether an apparently polytheistic religion, such as Hinduism , is really so, or whether the different apparent objects of worship are to be thought of as manifestations of the one God. Polytheistic cultures tend to be more relaxed about adding compatible gods, or in other words their deities are less jealous than those of monotheistic religions. Hence the historian Gibbon's observation about the many religions of ancient Rome, ‘which were regarded by the people as equally true, by the philosophers as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful’.

As for my position on gods.   Your allegation is false;  I never try to force anyone to accept my view about God.  (That would be an act of futility.)   My focus is typically not on a particular god but rather on belief sans persuasive evidence (and, in particular, holding the Bible as divine).   I do routinely suggest that if god were defined as 'sentient creator' that such a definition is sensible.   It does not contradict modern knowledge (a sentient creator is indeed possible) and as long as the believer recognizes that the belief is speculative, the belief is entirely sound.

In contrast, belief in a highly-attributed god such as the Christian god (God) is replete with problems.   The most obvious problem is that the definition of God (per the Bible) is contradictory.   

That should be sufficient to set the record straight.   Now how about ending making me the topic?   Is that possible?   Focus on the argument rather than the person?

To me God is the ultimate source of cause and effect in the universe. The concept of "gods" is silly, except when discussed as a human construct.     "gods" depend on human beings for their "existence", God does not. 

Well then you do have a definition for 'God'.   God is the first cause .    Is this first cause ( ultimate source ) sentient?

You and Tig are a trip.  Many people dont agree with you about God or religion, but you just keep trucking with the same thing over and over. 

"gods" are a human creation, cultural manifestations of human beings natural wondering if they exist here by accident or through some sort of plan. Religions generally conclude there is a plan. 

God, capital G, does not depend on human beings for it's existence. If the planet earth did not exist, God still would (assuming there is a God). 

I dont think that is a difficult concept to understand. 

"gods" are the product of human societies, GOD is not. 

"gods" are a human creation, cultural manifestations of human beings natural wondering if they exist here by accident or through some sort of plan. Religions generally conclude there is a plan. 

I agree (again).   (Talk about repeating yourself.)

God, capital G, does not depend on human beings for it's existence. If the planet earth did not exist, God still would (assuming there is a God). 

I agree (again).   (Just like the first time you wrote this.)

I dont think that is a difficult concept to understand. 

I agree.   It is very simple.

"gods" are the product of human societies, GOD is not. 

Assuming 'GOD' exists and is defined as that which created us (or at least is not dependent upon us).

So what is your point with this?   What now do you think Gordy (or me) has posited?   

Many people dont agree with you about God or religion,

That's their prerogative.

but you just keep trucking with the same thing over and over. 

I just ask for evidence/proof when religious/god claims are made. Oh, how terrible of me. >sarc<

"gods" are a human creation, cultural manifestations of human beings natural wondering if they exist here by accident or through some sort of plan. Religions generally conclude there is a plan. 

Yes, and? 

God, capital G, does not depend on human beings for it's existence. If the planet earth did not exist, God still would (assuming there is a God). 

I'd say the same generally holds true for little g gods. 

I dont think that is a difficult concept to understand. 

Yes, it is simple.

"gods" are the product of human societies, GOD is not. 

That's just an assumption. Whats your point?

Do God's exist??? I would have to say YES!

Based on what?

Of course most of you would disagree with me and ask for evidence.

Naturally.

  What if I told you the evidence exists right in front of your faces? 

Do tell.

Does that sound about right? Okay, so if I can meet that set of criteria, would that mean that it is possible for Gods to exist

So basically, god is omnipotent and omniscient, per your definition, is that correct?

Well, if you need an example of such a creature, look at the comments you are posting. YOU created them. Before you did they did not exist. YOU typed up your comment and posted it. It did not exist until you did.

That's quite a stretch. There's a far cry between simply posting a message and being a supposed all knowing, all powerful deity. And I don't think anyone here is claiming to be on par with a god.

Anyone here familiar with the Sim's game ? 

An awesome game. So were the Simcity series of games. Not the 2013 remake though.

YOU decide their entire lives.  YOU are the God in the Sim's game!

Yes, but we're talking about actual reality.

Where do you think we will be in another 100 years?  How about in a thousand? How about in 10,000? How about when a million years have gone by?  Do you seriously believe that with all that we have accomplished this far we will still be limited to our corporeal bodies? 

An interesting thought. But speculative at best.

 that never would have existed without our God-Like intervention. 

I wouldn't call that god-like. Just scientific medical. Of course, if ancient humans saw today's technology and ability, they probably would think of us as gods themselves.

And we are still infants in this vast universe...

That much is probably true.

There's a far cry between simply posting a message and being a supposed all knowing, all powerful deity.

You don't know that. It might work in exactly the same way.

You don't know that. It might work in exactly the same way.

So we're supposed to be gods then? For simply posting messages? Well, if that's the standard one wants to set for godhood, then ok.

Good grief.   

That sort of diminishes the concept of God a bit don't you think?

That sort of diminishes the concept of God a bit don't you think?

So much for the "Sentient Creator" or "grandest possible entity, eh?" Post a comment, become a god, right? Lol

That sort of diminishes the concept of God a bit don't you think?

Not necessarily. Maybe it elevates the concept of a person and what it means to think a thought.

Not necessarily. Maybe it elevates the concept of a person and what it means to think a thought.

Quite an elevation to equate posting a comment to the act of creation by God.   

Normally people consider God to be the supreme entity that created and rules over everything.    Then we have the author of a comment.

Author  ≅  God.    Sure, there is no absurd leap there.

Quite an elevation to equate posting a comment to the act of creation by God.

I don't pretend to know how all of Creation works, but I am open and creative enough to envision many possibilities.

Sure, there is no absurd leap there.

Believe what you like. As always.

I don't pretend to know how all of Creation works, but I am open and creative enough to envision many possibilities.

Join the countless billions, historically, who have used their imagination to envision possibilities.

Not sure the notion of God's creative powers ≅ a human author's creative powers will resonate;  might want to work on that one before publication.

That's quite a stretch. There's a far cry between simply posting a message and being a supposed all knowing, all powerful deity.

All knowing?  Wouldn't that eliminate Freewill?

There's a far cry between simply posting a message and being a supposed all knowing, all powerful deity.

Not really.  Both are Creators; one is just a little more limited than the other.

Yes, but we're talking about actual reality

But isn't it real?  I mean it does actually exist or it doesn't. Since it does exist (the program) just another dimension of our own Reality.

I wouldn't call that god-like. Just scientific medical.

Really? If you did the fertilization and implantation you would be giving life to a person who would not have existed without your intervention.  Isn't that the whole basis all religions are built upon?  Therefore, you have done a God-Like action even if you did use science and medicine to achieve it.

Of course, if ancient humans saw today's technology and ability, they probably would think of us as gods themselves.

Now you're catching on to what I'm driving at!

Normally people consider God to be the supreme entity that created and rules over everything.    Then we have the author of a comment.

How do we know we aren't just part of another beings dreams or thoughts?  Because we are sentient? Aren't the people in YOUR dreams sentient?  Or do you have to tell them what to say and do?

LoL!  Who knows, maybe Dr. Suess was closer to the real truth than we are??? Lemme hear it all of you Who's of Whoville!

How do we know we aren't just part of another beings dreams or thoughts?

We do not know.   You, for example, could be a lone Boltzmann brain who imagines everything.

All knowing?  Wouldn't that eliminate Freewill?

Yes.   If it is possible to know the future then that means the future is knowable.   How could you have free will if your future decisions are knowable before you make them?

All knowing?  Wouldn't that eliminate Freewill?

Yes, it does.

Not really.  Both are Creators; one is just a little more limited than the other.

Based on certain established parameters, I'd say it's a lot more than just a little limited.

But isn't it real?  I mean it does actually exist or it doesn't. Since it does exist ( the program ) just another dimension of our own Reality.

Welcome to the Matrix. Red pill or blue pill? 

Really? If you did the fertilization and implantation you would be giving life to a person who would not have existed without your intervention. 

No, that's just the mechanics using technology. Otherwise, nature does it all the time in many species.

Isn't that the whole basis all religions are built upon?  Therefore, you have done a God-Like action even if you did use science and medicine to achieve it.

One would think that if something was god-like, there would be something magical or mystical about it. But it's essentially just nature. 

Now you're catching on to what I'm driving at!

At least we know we have technology and are not gods. At least, I think most of us do.

why has God been hiding? 

If God really wants us to worship and do as God says, an appearance would get results 

One thing I am curious about.

Why do so many non-believers keep asking for proof that God exists?

I suspect that many of them would still not believe that God exists if He appeared before them and talked to them.

I am curious why so many seem to want it proven to them that He exists.

If others believe, then that has no big effect on them personally in any significant way.

So why keep asking for the proof you KNOW won't be coming? What's the point of it?

Why do so many non-believers keep asking for proof that God exists?

Evidence; not proof.   

Do you find the claim that the grandest possible entity exists to be insignificant?    Seems to me, that is probably the most grandiose claim a human being could make (short of, I suppose, claiming to be God).   Why would people NOT ask those making the claim to provide supporting evidence?

Evidence; not proof.   

Basically the same thing in this case.

Do you find the claim that the grandest possible entity exists to be insignificant?  

Nope.

Seems to me, that is probably the most grandiose claim a human being could make (short of, I suppose, claiming to be God).  

You may be right.

Why would people NOT ask those making the claim to provide supporting evidence?

Because the sensible, logical thing to do would be to stop asking when you already know what the answers will be. Unless you are expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over?

Basically the same thing in this case.

Profoundly different.   

Because the sensible, logical thing to do would be to stop asking when you already know what the answers will be. Unless you are expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over?

Here is how this usually goes:

1. My God exists
2. Show me the evidence.

Without 1, there is no 2.

Profoundly different.  

Matter of opinion.

Here is how this usually goes:
My God exists
Show me the evidence.
Without 1, there is no 2.

So it is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

Take this article, for an example.

Looks like 2 existed perfectly fine without 1.

I figured you would go there.   This article is a rarity.   

Usually, it goes exactly as I noted.

When a comment is made repeatedly then the challenge will be made repeatedly.   I have lost count how many times you have asked your questions @8 even though I know several of us have given you direct answers.

I figured you would go there.   This article is a rarity.   

Not that rare. And if religion or God is brought up in some articles, the same questions are almost always asked.

When a comment is made repeatedly then the challenge will be made repeatedly.   I have lost count how many times you have asked your questions @8 even though I know several of us have given you direct answers.

Looks like neither of us accept or particularly like the other's answers.

Not that rare.

Right.   Well this is certainly pointless.

Right. 

I know.

Well this is certainly pointless.

As pointless as asking for evidence or proof that God exists?

Here is how this usually goes:

1. My God exists
2. Show me the evidence.