Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[jeremyp]

well God is proposed not just as certain entity but in the same sense that the nature part of ontological naturalism. I believe the phrase ground of being and ultimate and necessary have been mentioned. He's not limited to some kind of big chap you know.

I think you are thinking of God as something contained and less than nature. You'd have to see someone else about something like that.

OK so show us your verifiable evidence that this god you propose exists.

[Shaker]

well God is proposed not just as certain entity but in the same sense that the nature part of ontological naturalism. I believe the phrase ground of being and ultimate and necessary have been mentioned.

Ohhhhh you mean that sort of empty, meaningless verbiage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He's not arguing at all. You are claiming the existence of a certain entity. All we are saying is "OK, so show us your verifiable evidence".

That really is how simple it is.

Notice how I'm not using big words like "ontological" or "naturalistic".

just because one didn't use the word shit...it doesn't mean one isn't full of it.

[jeremyp]

just because one didn't use the word shit...it doesn't mean one isn't full of it.

Well you just did use the word, so show us your verifiable evidence that your god exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well you just did use the word, so show us your verifiable evidence that your god exists.

The peculiar reaction to the Gospel by many people of love or hatred of it is as I have said evidence of the possibility of God since it could be monitored neurologically.
The behaviours around the Gospel lift it above belief or otherwise of things like spaghetti monsters, purple unicorns, facts of science, etc.

[Enki]

Having experience non belief of God and belief of God I know that of the two God is the most disturbing idea. But I don't think I'm unique in that.

Actually, neither disturbs me in the slightest. But that wasn't the point though, was it? The point was that if you were siting disturbance at the Christian God as some sort of evidence for his existence, then the opposite, as in your case, must also logically apply for his non existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, neither disturbs me in the slightest.

Really?, what brings you to these parts then since you have been affected enough by something to come to this forum?

[Shaker]

Really?, what brings you to these parts then since you have been affected enough by something to come to this forum?

I thought you'd already been told, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought you'd already been told, Vlad.

What by you?
You make a pronouncement and it's good for everyone?

Why aren't you on the Leprechaun forum?

[Shaker]

What by you?
You make a pronouncement and it's good for everyone?

No, I'm just going by my experience of what others have said with regard to their reasons for coming here. Enki, for example, just yesterday, part of whose post I hope he won't mind my quoting:

I do however reserve the right to challenge any arguments that I consider suspect if I so wish, and also to challenge attitudes which consider one's beliefs to be factual or some sort of 'truth' applicable to others without either the necessary evidence, or, at the very least, some sort of intersubjective methodology which can arrive at that evidence. Also, some Christians, in particular, seem to be on a prosletysing kick which often involves so called arguments which are little more than assertions. These I am quite willing to challenge.

(http://goo.gl/z6BXZw)

Why aren't you on the Leprechaun forum?

I don't know of any, and wouldn't bother to give them much of my time if I did as leprechaun believers aren't highly organised politically (tied to the state, even), immensely wealthy and seeking to interfere in the everyday lives of ordinary people and the choices they wish to make with regard to their own happiness.

If they were, I would be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm just going by my experience of what others have said with regard to their reasons for coming here. Enki, for example, just yesterday, part of whose post I hope he won't mind my quoting:

(http://goo.gl/z6BXZw)I don't know of any, and wouldn't bother to give them much of my time if I did as leprechaun believers aren't highly organised politically (tied to the state, even), immensely wealthy and seeking to interfere in the everyday lives of ordinary people and the choices they wish to make with regard to their own happiness.

Where does that happen then.
Aren't the immensely wealthy capable of influencing policy better than the CofE themselves.
The CofE has very little power. You need a reality check.

[Rhiannon]

Vlad,

Like you I've been both sides of the fence. The most disturbing thing isn't belief or unbelief but the nagging thought that your beliefs might be wrong - once the doubts creep in they don't just evaporate and the more heavily invested you are in your faith the harder they are to ignore, hence the ever more desperate need to prove them to other people. It's not a very peaceful way of living. The elephant in the room isn't the fact that non-believers are denying god's existence, but the reason why you are so anxious to find evidence for it. Perhaps instead of making futile arguments attempting to prove the unprovable your time might be better spent facing where that anxious need to do so comes from.

[Enki]

Really?, what brings you to these parts then since you have been affected enough by something to come to this forum?

Interest. I've got all sorts of things I'm interested in. Need I go further? How about you?

I notice, with interest, that you don't make any comment on the rest of what I wrote in post 230.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Like you I've been both sides of the fence. The most disturbing thing isn't belief or unbelief but the nagging thought that your beliefs might be wrong - once the doubts creep in they don't just evaporate and the more heavily invested you are in your faith the harder they are to ignore, hence the ever more desperate need to prove them to other people. It's not a very peaceful way of living. The elephant in the room isn't the fact that non-believers are denying god's existence, but the reason why you are so anxious to find evidence for it. Perhaps instead of making futile arguments attempting to prove the unprovable your time might be better spent facing where that anxious need to do so comes from.

You got that wrong. I am not seeking spiritual answers from science... where are they going to come from? I've considered omega points where science and revelation coincide and dismissed them there is never going to be an intersect between methodology and ontology.
God needs to make himself manifest. We do see ripples and individuals bobbing up and down in the sea of something else though in how the Gospel affects people.

[Shaker]

Where does that happen then.

I've already given you one example - marriage equality, where the established state church (and many other religious bodies, although some of the smaller ones were in full support) tried to block a proposal that didn't affect them or encroach on their territory in any way whatsoever. They were, in short, trying to sway the rules of a club they don't and don't want to belong to, which to me is pretty much the hallmark of selfish obtrusiveness and petty interference for the sake of it.

The CofE has very little power. You need a reality check.

The one needing a reality check seems to be you - the C of E is the established state church, immensely wealthy, with its fingers in all sorts of pies (including some distinctly unsavoury ones*) and owning vast amounts of land. It has bishops in the House of Lords as of right rather than merit attempting to influence the legislative process. If they have very little power, why are they still there?

* The Wonga scandal of 2013, for example.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You do not actually hold the default position nor are you without burden since ontological naturalism carries one. In fact it is worse for you because the lack of methodological support for your implicit position removes virtue from it.

I haven't argued for anything just asked why we should take your claims seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interest. I've got all sorts of things I'm interested in. Need I go further? How about you?

Well the obvious next question is why are you interested?
The reason I am here is that I am affected by God otherwise this is the last subject I would be into , in other words I probably wouldn't have given a toss about it.

I have to confess I enjoy the banter around here. Where else could one here one's place of worship referred to as a ''Left handed swivel shop'' for instance?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You got that wrong. I am not seeking spiritual answers from science... where are they going to come from?

I am not seeking spiritual answers from science either. Just a way of assessing claims of the divine.

I think that is called being open minded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't argued for anything just asked why we should take your claims seriously.

That makes it sound as though you come to it prepacked not to.

[Stranger]

The peculiar reaction to the Gospel by many people of love or hatred of it is as I have said evidence of the possibility of God since it could be monitored neurologically.

Every idea that is self-consistent and is not contradicted by evidence, is a possibility. Whether some versions of god are possible is not, and never has been, the question.

There are endless baseless ideas that are possible - how do we decide which are correct? Science has done a good job at that but you say it isn't applicable to god - well, fine, but how do we then tell the difference between the merely possible and the truth? How do we tell baseless but consistent fictions from reality?

The behaviours around the Gospel lift it above belief or otherwise of things like spaghetti monsters, purple unicorns, facts of science, etc.

That will be because more people believe in gods than in those other things and the god ideas have more influence in societies. Gods seem to be the widest held baseless superstitions of them all...

[Shaker]

That makes it sound as though you come to it prepacked not to.

Yes Vlad - it's called the burden of proof. Also scepticism. An idea has to win its place at the table by its internal coherence and consistency, the quantity and quality of its evidence, the strength of its methodology and so forth rather than going through on the nod and being accepted by default.

That way lies the insanity of believing absolutely everything capable of being believed - all of it, everything - by default until and unless there's explicit disconfirmatory evidence. I assume that that's not how you proceed in everyday life; some of us simply don't make a special exception and exemption for gods as you do.

[Enki]

Well the obvious next question is why are you interested?
The reason I am here is that I am affected by God otherwise this is the last subject I would be into , in other words I probably wouldn't have given a toss about it.

I have to confess I enjoy the banter around here. Where else could one here one's place of worship referred to as a ''Left handed swivel shop'' for instance?

I've always been interested in all sorts of things, music(playing and listening, ornithology, science(in the broadest sense), fossils(cue for a pun). I think it is part of my make up, a sort of innate curiosity. I also find the views of others interesting, including your own views, Vlad, from time to time, when I can decipher them.

Unlike you I have never been particularly personally affected by any god that I know of, but that still doesn't stop me being interested. I have visited temples such as karnak, Edfu, Hapshepsut etc. and found them fascinating, but I doubt that I have actually been affected by such gods as Hathor, to name but one. The only way your particular God has affected me is probably the cultural one that I grew up in.

Hope that answers your question. 

[Rhiannon]

You got that wrong. I am not seeking spiritual answers from science... where are they going to come from? I've considered omega points where science and revelation coincide and dismissed them there is never going to be an intersect between methodology and ontology.
God needs to make himself manifest. We do see ripples and individuals bobbing up and down in the sea of something else though in how the Gospel affects people.

I didn't mention science in my post.

Why the anxiety to prove to us what you cannot prove?

[Owlswing]

Well the obvious next question is why are you interested?
The reason I am here is that I am affected by God otherwise this is the last subject I would be into , in other words I probably wouldn't have given a toss about it.

I have to confess I enjoy the banter around here. Where else could one here one's place of worship referred to as a ''Left handed swivel shop'' for instance?

Translation - I am here as an God-Almighty Wind Up Merchant who posts damn great piles of bullshit and watches others try to make any kind of sense of the crap I write!

 

[Hope]

Translation - I am here as an God-Almighty Wind Up Merchant who posts damn great piles of bullshit and watches others try to make any kind of sense of the crap I write!

I have to agree with this analysis of your posts, Owl.