Just how god wanted it to be, imo. Oh, and also, having the planet bombarded by asteroids and comets earlier in its history was ideal as well.

Yeah seriously. Jib, are you saying that your God isn't powerful enough to overcome the blockade of some framework that humans have created??

But this is the best evidentiary framework we have. It is only natural to use the best standards of evidence we have to believe in ANYTHING.

We already know that intuitive evidence or anecdotal evidence are horrible standards to use. Do you have another suggestion?

I do think it carries some weight that the majority of the very best scientists are agnostics/atheists. When the smartest people on the planet in terms of analyzing the known world do not believe in God, this should give any reasonable person pause. That doesn't mean we should jump to the same conclusion as these people, but I think it should carry enough weight to merit further investigation from a believer or "on the fencer" into this matter.

When I was a believer and realized that the smartest people in the world did not believe in God, it did spur me on to search for God myself. I did a lot of reading and studying and I never found him. Instead I discovered how ignorant and illogical my thinking had been all of my life.

Rize, I wish you would've shown a picture of a down syndrome kid. I had the perfect comeback.

I do find your view endlessly fascinating which is why I'll probably post in this forum until I die. For me, the existence of active tectonic plates on our planet (which causes immeasurable suffering via tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc) while other planets exist that show no evidence of active tectonic plate movements (Venus), is enough for me to reject the current omni3 conception of the Christian God. I consider that God completely falsified. However, there are many other conceptions still left.

I came up with an answer in the other thread. But fine, if that's not enough I can come up with more.

1. Prayer to the Christian God is shown to dramatically increase the cancer remission rate of those prayed for, even when they are no aware of the prayers.

2. Quantum interactions are found to influence neural patterns, and religious experiences are found to emerge from these (quantum indeterminate) reactions. They are strongest where Christianity is concerned.

3. Those who claim to accept Jesus as their savior are many times less likely than other populations to commit crimes, regardless of social or economic circumstances.

4. Holy water blessed by certain people (most of whom are Christian, all of whom are spiritual with reputations of kindness, acceptance, and compassion) is found to eliminate populations of harmful bacteria without affecting the health of the host.

5. Certain people report experiencing visions of Jesus on a particular night. Subsequently, these people are experimentally verified to have almost double the normal accuracy rate in standard ESP flash card tests.

6. Projects such as the Global Consciousness Project begin showing systematic and predictable patterns during Christian holidays.

7. Mass "prayer days" are held in which the international community simultaneously prays. Over 500 million people participate. After each prayer day, consistent effects are shown (better crop yields, better remission rates, etc).

8. Wearing a cross constructed of any material is shown to lower blood pressure in the hypertension population to a much greater degree than placebos of similar symbols.

9. Christians are found to score much higher on IQ tests and math aptitude tests than atheists, on average. The Christians can be divided into two largely distinct distributions - one with scores in the 4-sigma range, and one with scores around the population mean. Converts to Christianity will sometimes experience a change in scores raising their mean to the 4-sigma range.

10. Wind patterns predictably change each Good Friday and bring rain to every recognized Christian holy site. The rains continue unabated until Easter Sunday, at which time they cease. By dawn on Easter Sunday, there is a clear sky above each site (these patterns are consistent with the time zones/times of day at each site). The clear sky remains for exactly one week, and weather returns to its ordinary seasonal conditions. This patterns repeats for a number of years.

Regardless, saying that there is no evidence for God, even when evidence for God is not allowed within this framework, is entirely fair. This is not about creating an "even debate."

That you have proposed something that is not provable within a rational framework is a weakness in what you propose, not an "unfairness" in the framework.

I think the position that the scientific framework is rational has been presented powerfully in this thread. We have seen it proved effective time and again. Now you have proposed a God that cannot be rationally justified within that framework. This implies that it can be rational to disbelieve in God. You may not like that conclusion, but it's the only conclusion you seem to be working toward here.

You need to show that either it is not rational to use the scientific framework as a basis for belief, or that belief in God can be justified within that framework. If it is rational to use the scientific framework as a basis for belief, and if God cannot be justified within that framework, then it is rational to reject belief in God.

The framework is called science.

This is what is known as "GOD OF THE GAPS" How could you possibly know that "we would hit a point where something cannot be explained naturally" You are saying "My generation can't figure this problem, therefore no one ever will, therefore "God did this"

What sort of evidence should people require to believe in God? Or stated another way, how should people decide whether or not God is real or imaginary? Also, if someone determines some sort of God must exist, which one should they pick to believe in and why?

Well, for starters people shouldn't require the sort of evidence that a priori cannot exist.

I don't think you've made the case that any and all "potential" evidence for the existence of god(s) fits into this category, but leaving that for a moment...

The "evidence" for each and every claim that is false is evidence that cannot exist. The only thing that might make you say it is a priori is if it seems exceedingly obvious even before searching that what you are looking for is probably not there.

For a pedomorphic example, the evidence required to support the claim that everything in the universe is made of 1 inch long dragons cannot exist. We know things are made of a particles smaller than an inch in length. And furthermore, we recognize dragons as things that human beings invented, not something that exists outside our minds. Does this in some way imply that we are not giving this claim a fair shake? Do we need to re-examine our system for evaluating claims, for discovering what is reasonable, etc., simply because the current method excludes this claim from consideration?

People have given numerous examples of what strong evidence worth considering might look like.

Furthermore, all of these arguments could be applied to invisible undetectable flying unicorns and the like. Is it unreasonable not to believe in them simply because good evidence for them would be very hard to come by?

But the current methods due include the falsification of this. You explained that right in your post. So this is not a fair analogy.

What makes it a priori is that science states that the only thing that can exist must exist inside of the natural universe and that anything outside is dismissed.

Now this also leads you to assume that the universe must have created itself and everything we see around us is an accident. Now I could see how one might think this is a possible explanation, but to assume that it can be the only explanation does not seem very rational to me.

No it doesn't.

First off, if you want to give flying unicorns all of the same properties and role of the creator, then you would be correct. Otherwise your are being ******ed.

And people have shared basically personal experiences that would convince them. An individual miracle is not the topic of discussion.

How about this. Do you think that it is reasonable to say that if the universe was found to have ____________ properties, that would have to imply that it was created by an intelligent being.

That sounds like a scientific statement. Certainly something that is designed and created must have different properties than something that was not.

It's seriously crazy that theists just cannot accept that they, not us, are the ones making positive claims about the origins of the universe etc.

Why would they need to be the creator? I mean, sure, make the flying undetectable unicorns the creators of the universe. But I don't think it's necessary for my analogy. They are outside the realm of science also. By your standards, no evidence for their existence could be produced by scientific standards. And for some reason this does not count as a strike against belief in undetectable flying unicorns, to you.


We know for a fact that personal experiences are generally unreliable for ascertaining specific religious truths.

Yes, I would say that there are properties that would evidence a designer. I've even mentioned some in this thread. So have numerous others.

Grrr...

This is what creationists do (EVERY TIME) in debates against evolution. They think that bashing or attempting to disprove evolution is all that's required to makes their case for creationism and they go on to do this for the entire debate. They never once put forward positive evidence for creationism.

(By the way, this is a very sneaky method of arguing. You start off by asserting that your theory is the "other side" of an either/or proposition, and then continue attempting to debunk the positive evidence we do have in order to prove yourself right.)

Where? I have not seen any. Unless you are talking about the stars aligning and spelling something out.

Things of that nature don't count because...?

I would also include - God literally revealing himself, interacting with humans and demonstrating his powers in a very open fashion. The kind of thing where I could be like "oh hey look, there is God doing X and it is ****ing amazing. He is super powerful."

Well, I was talking about how things currently, and you are talking about something changing how they are currently.

But with your last sentence, I don't know how much good that would do. To a few, sure, but to many it would be brushed aside. And eventually down the line people with start to call it myth like everything else.

Yeah, repeatedly.

"God doing X AGAIN and it is ****ing amazing AGAIN!"

Being there with us. Walking beside us. Talking to us. Constantly giving us advice. Like back in the days of Eden.

I don't know if anyone actually proposes this explanation. The only context I can recall off hand seeing this kind of "explanation" is as a straw man put forth by religious people... a straw man that quite frankly I don't even see them burn down very well.

I don't assume anything about The Creation of the Universe. I don't know anything about it, and I don't know of any compelling reasons to believe any myths or fables about it, nor do I see any compelling reason to believe that any particular philosophy about it, no matter how internally consistent it may be, is going to wind up being true.

I think it has been said a number of times already, but if you are suggesting that science is inadequate to evaluate some claims, that is probably a reasonable thing to suggest. Feel free to advance an alternative method of evaluation of non-scientific claims, and we'll see where that leads.

However, as far as things that are alleged to have some kind of meaning or impact on the universe, I don't know of any compelling reason not to continue to rely on the scientific method.

Your refusal to leave the "atheists dismiss all evidence" playground and start dealing with specific claims and specific evidence is leading no where useful.

For example, if you claim that my laptop computer is god, then I concede that god exists.

If you claim that my laptop computer is god and can fly, but may choose not to fly when anyone is watching, then while I will think you are full of ****, I will not be able to prove in a philosophical, technical sense that you are wrong, even though in practical every day terms I know that you are wrong, and can "prove" it by glancing at my laptop and seeing that it lacks any features that might grant it the ability to fly. Without any kind of compelling reason to believe that the laptop can fly, your claim is dismissed with the same ease with which I dismiss ... well, I don't need to come up with an analogy; it is just quite easily dismissed.

If you claim that my laptop computer is god and can and will fly when anyone prays for it to do so, then not only will I think you are mentally defective, but I will be able to prove in every sense of the word that your claims are incorrect, if/when I pray for it to fly and it does not do anything. Sure, there is some bias in the way I am writing this, in that I am assuming my laptop really cannot fly, even if I pray for it to happen, but I don't think this bias is unreasonably influencing my decision making process, or my ability to evaluate evidence.

Most people who seriously offer "evidence" of god(s) wind up being people like Praxising, who it turns out will believe any old woo-woo in the world who makes any kind of fantastic claim, and then somehow decides that scientists are ducking the truth if they don't take the time to evaluate scientifically every extraordinary claim by every crazy person in the world.

So while you may not come across as a crazy person, and you may not be putting forth some kind of catch all "I believe in every wacky thing you can find on the internet" ideas, I just don't think it is reasonable to expect to waltz in and demand that everyone bend over backward to find a way to prove or test a god for you that you haven't really defined, or to allow that science (which works when it comes to figuring out useful models of how things work, and producing useful results) is no good for figuring out other things that allegedly influence and interact with the world. The odds are actually stacked against you!

I'm sorry, you want me to explain what evidence for God CURRENTLY exists? Am I getting this right?

lol. This would convert 99%+ of the world to the same religion if they were exposed to it. This isn't 500BC, this would all be very well documented. Also, I don't see why you are assuming that it would stop.

No, it doesn't. Science states that the only thing we are justified in believing must exist inside of the natural universe, and that we can have no knowledge of whatever exists outside. There is no naive assumption in science that a human being on a rock in a tiny corner of a massive universe can know everything.

As usual, I'll state that I think it is more likely than not that some god exists. That does not mean I believe in any gods. You seem to have this idea that human beings can know absolutely everything, that the ultimate mystery of the cosmos is within our grasp, that we are just that smart. Well, we aren't that smart. I like humans and all, but we aren't gods. We are limited. There are some things we can never know.