# Evidence of God?

Now there are a great many things in this Universe that we don't know about. But that does not mean they don't exist. There are "factual things" which we do know, and there are "factual things" which we don't know. Which is to say, a fact remains a fact, irregardless.

And yet it's entirely possible for one person or, perhaps a whole group of people (due to the "fact" we're all part of the human condition -- this is the key here ), to ascertain a certain fact (or facts) that others are incapable of. And so the real issue becomes, at what point does a fact become knowable?

Indeed, it would be much easier if it could be accepted uniformly and by everyone. Then there would be no point to disagree. But what if there was a fact that only "one" person knew about, nor do I mean a fact specific to that one person, but a general fact that affected everyone? Does this mean the fact is unknowable or, not ascertainable by anyone else? Should it? If one person can ascertain it, then chances are others can ascertain it as well.

And yet what if it were one of those things which are not readily ascertainable, say like the notion of God? Of course this is probably why it's not widely accepted by everyone -- or, in the case of many who have accepted it, they may have accepted it "blindly" -- but should that have any bearing on whether or not God exists? Should it? The fact is, He either exists or He doesn't exist.

If this is the case, and God does exist, then there should also be "characteristic evidence" to support it. Or how else could you identify it? And yet the problem is, that unless you make the discovery yourself, being that it's not readily ascertained, you may not be able to associate the evidence with the facts. Although it's still evidence! In which case you may have all the evidence in the world -- which I suggest we do if we're speaking about God by the way -- but, unless one is able to make the association, nothing is going to happen.

So what does it mean? Especially when one person presents the evidence and another charges that there is no evidence, when it's really a matter of not being able to make the association? Hmm ... Is it anybody's fault really? I wouldn't think so. So why all the accusations then? Could it be because it has something to do with the notion of God, where the evidence could very well be right under our noses? ... Now that is a distinct possibility!

megashawn
Especially when one person presents the evidence and another charges that there is no evidence, when it's really a matter of not being able to make the association? Hmm ... Is it anybody's fault really?

Thats a good question. What exactly are we associating this evidence with? We have no clue. How can we possibly make the association, when we've only got 1 part of the equation?

Honestly, short of God himself coming to us and saying "I'm god, check me out and all my omnipotence" I don't think there is much in the way of evidence.

I couldn't deny gods existance, but more so point out that there has been thousands of gods explained away by science, or just a better understanding of nature. As you said, there are things in the universe that we do not yet know of. Honestly, until we truly understand what a God would want from us, I think it would be premature of us, and insulting to him, to worship him in some form that does not exist.

I mean face it, when it gets down to it, you just don't know. You may have reasoned out that god exist, simply by saying he has to in order for things to be, or have manipulated the numbers of an ancient text to reflect your wishes, but honestly, you just don't know. I don't know, nobody knows.

And a saying I've like is "Any decision based on ignorance is usually wrong"

Of course some things in life you just have to guess at. But what is the difference between a persons guess and evidence?

alot.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now there are a great many things in this Universe that we don't know about. But that does not mean they don't exist. There are "factual things" which we do know, and there are "factual things" which we don't know. Which is to say, a fact remains a fact, irregardless.
Invisible pink unicorns come to mind.

And yet it's entirely possible for one person or, perhaps a whole group of people…to ascertain a certain fact (or facts) that others are incapable of.
Yes, for instance, it is a fact that it doesn’t matter whether invisible pink unicorns actually exist or not, for we will foot-slog our way through this life just the same. This is certainly true for me, so I don’t want to be blamed if someone finds they are simply incapable of ascertaining the facts…

And so the real issue becomes, at what point does a fact become knowable?
If what you are saying is ‘acknowledged by all’ (instead of knowable), then in that case I would say: When we all see the unicorn.

…The fact is, He either exists or He doesn't exist.
There is another fact; ‘we’ don’t know the answer.

So what does it mean?
It means you will have to make up your mind for yourself, and I hope you will allow me to do the same.

…Especially when one person presents the evidence and another charges that there is no evidence, when it's really a matter of not being able to make the association?
What association?...that someone else makes an assertion, they cannot be wrong, and therefore I should simply believe whatever they do?

… Hmm ... Is it anybody's fault really? I wouldn't think so.
Could it possibly be God’s fault?
Nah, couldn’t be.

So why all the accusations then?
What accusations, that your word isn’t good enough for me?
That isn’t an accusation, that’s a fact.

Could it be because it has something to do with the notion of God, where the evidence could very well be right under our noses?
Could be anything, that’s the problem.

... Now that is a distinct possibility!
At any rate, possibilities aren’t enough cause to get me excited, sorry.

Originally posted by megashawn
Thats a good question. What exactly are we associating this evidence with? We have no clue. How can we possibly make the association, when we've only got 1 part of the equation?

Honestly, short of God himself coming to us and saying "I'm god, check me out and all my omnipotence" I don't think there is much in the way of evidence.
Of course if God really does exist, then we might want to consider the fact that "we" are the evidence, and that this is the only way we'll really be able to solve the puzzle. In other words by having it communicated to us on a "personal level."

Neither am I saying it's necessary for God to make a cameo appearance by the way!

Invisible pink unicorns come to mind.
If such things do exist, then yes it becomes a fact. Of course a lot of that might depend on the definition as well.

Yes, for instance, it is a fact that it doesn’t matter whether invisible pink unicorns actually exist or not, for we will foot-slog our way through this life just the same. This is certainly true for me, so I don’t want to be blamed if someone finds they are simply incapable of ascertaining the facts…
This is where I bring up the notion of a specific fact versus a general fact, which affects all of us.

If what you are saying is ‘acknowledged by all’ (instead of knowable), then in that case I would say: When we all see the unicorn.
No, but isn't a fact knowable when at least one person can acknowledge it?

There is another fact; ‘we’ don’t know the answer.
Then that means there must be at least two of you.

It means you will have to make up your mind for yourself, and I hope you will allow me to do the same.
If science has a right to its own opinion, and enforce it in a way that it's going to affect me directly, then yeah, I have a right to voice my opinion.

What association?...that someone else makes an assertion, they cannot be wrong, and therefore I should simply believe whatever they do?
People make assertions all the time, right or wrong.

Could it possibly be God’s fault?
Nah, couldn’t be.
Who's that? Well just don't go pointing your finger at me, Okay?

What accusations, that your word isn’t good enough for me?
That isn’t an accusation, that’s a fact.
What you're telling me is you don't like to be told what to do (or how to think). Who does?

Could be anything, that’s the problem.
Or, it could even be the air that we breath.

At any rate, possibilities aren’t enough cause to get me excited, sorry.
Actualy I'm more into probabilities myself.

Person A has an extrordinary ex-
perience that person B has never

Person A reports the experience to
B.

B finds it impossible to believe.

Person A is miffed.

Person A accuses B of being closed
minded.

Is B actually closed minded or
merely inexperienced?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is where I bring up the notion of a specific fact versus a general fact, which affects all of us.
Well bring ‘em on and I’ll ascertain them.

No, but isn't a fact knowable when at least one person can acknowledge it?
You tell me because there are, after all, insane people living in this world who believe all sorts of things to be fact.

Then that means there must be at least two of you.
‘We’ means simply you and me. You might know something but if I don’t know it too, than We do not know it.

If science has a right to its own opinion, and enforce it in a way that it's going to affect me directly, then yeah, I have a right to voice my opinion.
Is this the old persecution complex I smell?
Science doesn’t have an opinion, people do. Anyway, is ‘science’ affecting you so negatively that you must complain?

People make assertions all the time, right or wrong.
Yeah, and some of them might be scientists. Who cares?

Or, it could even be the air that we breath.
Like I said, that’s the problem.

Actualy I'm more into probabilities myself.
Me too, but only when I subjectively deem them to be >0.$hit. Last edited by a moderator: Originally posted by zoobyshoe Person A has an extrordinary ex- perience that person B has never had. Person A reports the experience to B. B finds it impossible to believe. Person A is miffed. Person A accuses B of being closed minded. Is B actually closed minded or merely inexperienced? Or, person A is not miffed, but person B insists that person A is full of crap, in order to try to get person A really miffed, and then continue to blame the whole thing on person A. In which case was it "right" for person A to bring it up in the first place? Neither does this discount the possibility that person B just doesn't understand. Last edited: BoulderHead Neither does this discount the possibility that person B just doesn't understand. Or person A either. Originally posted by BoulderHead Well bring ‘em on and I’ll ascertain them. I doubt it, besides that's not the point of this thread anyway. You tell me because there are, after all, insane people living in this world who believe all sorts of things to be fact. Well, I suppose it is possible to imagine things. ‘We’ means simply you and me. You might know something but if I don’t know it too, than We do not know it. Except that "we" doesn't have to imply "you and me." Is this the old persecution complex I smell? Science doesn’t have an opinion, people do. Anyway, is ‘science’ affecting you so negatively that you must complain? Sure it does, otherwise it wouldn't exercise it by publishing the results. Then again maybe it's not science I have a problem with, but with what people do with the science that I have a problem with? Yeah, and some of them might be scientists. Who cares? Am I saying somebody has the right to assert their view over someone else's? No, not really. Like I said, that’s the problem. In what way? Me too, but only when I subjectively deem them to be >0.$hit.
Are you trying to tell me something that I don't already know?

Or person A either.
But doesn't anybody know anything around here? Or, do we have to rely on Science for the answers? That's my whole point!

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In which case was it "right" for person A to bring it up in the first place?

Here person A might start to
realize the problems inherent in
ience (knowledge of God, for
instance) that no one else of

How do you communicate it and be
taken seriously without being
able to cause B to experience the
same thing?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I doubt it, besides that's not the point of this thread anyway.
Well, I think you misunderstood what I was implying.
Well, I suppose it is possible to imagine things.
That is why you cannot simply take someone’s word, understand me?
Except that "we" doesn't have to imply "you and me."
You can run with it anyway you please but it was me who first said ‘we’ and it is me now explaining how I meant it to be understood.
BH-
Is this the old persecution complex I smell?
Science doesn’t have an opinion, people do. Anyway, is ‘science’ affecting you so negatively that you must complain?

Iacchus-
Sure it does, otherwise it wouldn't exercise it by publishing the results.
Well, I don’t believe that part about science having an opinion, but you on the other hand are certainly entitled to yours. In this case, and believing as I’m sure you do that we all have a right to an opinion, why should it bother you at all?
…Then again maybe it's not science I have a problem with, but with what people do with the science that I have a problem with?
Well then, you’ll have to make up your mind who or what to be upset with. Why not start a new post when you have it sorted out and tell me all about it?

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
How do you communicate it and be
taken seriously without being
able to cause B to experience the
same thing?
Basically you just learn not to expect a whole lot.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But doesn't anybody know anything around here? Or, do we have to rely on Science for the answers? That's my whole point!
Well correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to have some answers not provided by science don’t you?

In fact, the majority of people on this planet would seem to be religious. Doesn’t that sound like people don’t have to rely on science to you?
[/edit]

Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I think you misunderstood what I was implying.
It is possible.

That is why you cannot simply take someone’s word, understand me?
If I didn't say it, then I should have said at some point in this thread. I think it's there somewhere?

You can run with it anyway you please but it was me who first said ‘we’ and it is me now explaining how I meant it to be understood.
Yeah, but what gives you the right to lump me in with you? Comprender?

Well, I don’t believe that part about science having an opinion, but you on the other hand are certainly entitled to yours. In this case, and believing as I’m sure you do that we all have a right to an opinion, why should it bother you at all?
Sort of like ripples in a pond I guess?

Well then, you’ll have to make up your mind who or what to be upset with. Why not start a new post when you have it sorted out and tell me all about it?
Actually I never said I was incapable of getting upset, but when I do get upset I don't stay upset for very long.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, but what gives you the right to lump me in with you? Comprender?
The same thing that apparently allows you to do it with me;
...Or, do we have to rely on Science for the answers? That's my whole point!

Last edited by a moderator:
Well correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to have some answers not provided by science don’t you?

In fact, the majority of people on this planet would seem to be religious. Doesn’t that sound like people don’t have to rely on science to you?
[/edit]

Was a rhetorical question. Doesn't require an answer. In which case we don't have to answer back.

Do you know what, there's something about your ideology that seems well suited for twisting everything that I say into something that was never implied -- which, I really don't care for. Got it! ...

You see this is another trick and it's called subversion.

Was a rhetorical question. Doesn't require an answer. In which case we don't have to answer back.
*suggestion*
Stop wasting time with rhetoric.

Do you know what, there's something about your ideology that seems well suited for twisting everything that I say into something that was never implied -- which, I really don't care for. Got it!
My ideology???
Really, I thought you were the one doing the twisting, not me. At any rate, it is a fact that the author of a statement has a responsibility to make his/her thoughts as well written and coherent as possible, so don’t shuck that responsibility off on the reader. As I was attempting to touch on, you changed your gripe from science to what people do with science. I am merely trying to find out what your actual argument is so I can respond accordingly, that is all.

*suggestion*
Stop wasting time with rhetoric.
Listen, I made a perfectly valid point. If you don't want to accept it for I'm trying to say that's fine. And if I say we, it doesn't necessarily include you, Okay?

My ideology???
Really, I thought you were the one doing the twisting, not me. At any rate, it is a fact that the author of a statement has a responsibility to make his/her thoughts as well written and coherent as possible, so don’t shuck that responsibility off on the reader. As I was attempting to touch on, you changed your gripe from science to what people do with science. I am merely trying to find out what your actual argument is so I can respond accordingly, that is all.
I'm not going to argue with you okay?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Listen, I made a perfectly valid point. If you don't want to accept it for I'm trying to say that's fine. And if I say we, it doesn't necessarily include you, Okay?
Whatever you say.
I'm not going to argue with you okay?
Again, I’m asking you to state your point (aka: argument), not get involved in a shouting match with me. I have tried to address your points in a very up front and direct manner. The facts are, in imho, that you already know the answers to your questions but simply don’t like them. Let’s rehash something;
But doesn't anybody know anything around here? Or, do we have to rely on Science for the answers? That's my whole point!
So, if that is the whole point then it should be quite apparent what the answer is. There are in fact people on this very forum who do not rely on science for the answers, and there are people who do. The answer to your question depends on who you ask, plain and simple.
Science doesn’t have all the answers that people seek, nor is it likely discover them anytime soon. That does not mean, however, that the answers can be found by some other method either. So, in the end it is up to the individual to arrive at their own conclusions, and because no two people are the same there will not be a consensus. What is true for you is true only for you and not necessarily me. It is pointless to ask who is right and who isn’t because this is not something given for us to know.

You are a free agent in this world, there is no reason I can think of(and you never enumerated any) why you should have a problem with science (or whatever it was you were talking about).

Whatever you say.

Again, I’m asking you to state your point (aka: argument), not get involved in a shouting match with me. I have tried to address your points in a very up front and direct manner. The facts are, in imho, that you already know the answers to your questions but simply don’t like them. Let’s rehash something;
The whole point of this thread -- which, I think zoobyshoe hit pretty close to home on -- is what is it like to have access to knowledge (as much as I don't like that word) beyond the everyday perception of things? And what exactly does that entail when trying to communicate it to others? Especially when it involves getting people to think beyond a convention such as science. Which, at least to zoobyshoe, megashawn and myself seemed clear enough.

Couldn't you garner at least this much from the title of the thread and the first couple of paragraphs? But no, you wanted to get to the pink unicorns right off the bat and begin discounting my very first point. Whereas if you go back and re-read your first post, it's obvious that you didn't get it -- or, perhaps it was intentional? -- with all your deriding remarks and attempts to discount my words?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But doesn't anybody know anything around here? Or, do we have to rely on Science for the answers? That's my whole point!
So, if that is the whole point then it should be quite apparent what the answer is.
This has to do with zoobyshoe's illustration about person A trying to explain something to person B, and my suggesting person B doesn't understand, and you coming back and asking, "What if person A doesn't understand either?" which to me is the same as saying nobody understands, and discounts the whole point of this thread (much as your unicorn remarks did). In which case all we have to fall back on is science for an answer. And nobody is challenged to think -- particularly for themselves -- beyond the convention of science.

Perhaps now you can see what my problem is with people who rely exclusively on science for an answer?

Last edited:
As said in this thread, there are those who rely totally and exclusively on science for answers and information and there are those that don't. This makes niether group right or wrong, ignorantor educated, realistic or delusional. It simply is a fact.

I personally have evidedence that God exists. I can and have shown this evidence to anyone who cares to read these post as has Iacchus and others. This evidence is rejected, denied and claimed to be delusional, imaginary, or out and out lies.

The evidence, models, speculations and theories of science have at one time or another been touted as proof of this or that including that God does not exist and anyone who believes in God is believing in fairytales.

Time and time again it has been said that their is no evidence that God exists. Time and time agian it has been said the the Big Bang has been proven on the slim observation of two phenomena that may or may not be related and may or may not have anything to do with the Big Bang which is only a speculated model and not even really a theory, a mere possibility.

We theist belive in both science and God, objectivity and subjectivity, materialism and immaterialism, physics and metaphysics.
Scientific objective materialist believe or so they say in material objects and science only and anyone who believes in anything else is at least by implication a fool.

Again, I, we believe in the existence of God and have sufficient evidence to support our belief. Some of those who do not believe in
God say we have no evidence and the lack of evidence proves that there is no God.

Neither I nor anyone else can prove to anyone that God is;nor, can we show you God. We can only point the way. If you or any one else refuse to look or to see thats your problem not ours nor does it prove that we are stupid or delusional.

Is that clear enough for you, BH?

And yet you see the whole point about God is, if He does exist, then the whole idea becomes all-inclusive, in which case there's no sense in demanding proof, because the "evidence" is all around us. And it becomes merely a matter of deciding where to begin our search.

Well first off I apologize for being such a gruff SOB, but I might not be through just yet.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Couldn't you garner at least this much from the title of the thread and the first couple of paragraphs? But no, you wanted to get to the pink unicorns right off the bat and begin discounting my very first point. Whereas if you go back and re-read your first post, it's obvious that you didn't get it -- or, perhaps it was intentional? -- with all your deriding remarks and attempts to discount my words?
Well, in all fairness I will read the entire post over again…later. You could have tried harder to see my point too, but in any event I’m standing behind my unicorn analogy. Since the people who those claiming special knowledge are trying to convince cannot see this ‘evidence’, as you have called it, we may as well be talking about invisible pink unicorns.

Since the person A and B seemed to work with you, try this;
Person B hasn’t seen them, nor can person A show them to person B. Furthermore, there is no good reason why person B should simply believe what person A tells him. The experience/s apply only to person A. There is no point for person A to lose any sleep over this (even though they do it all the time). No reason except perhaps for Ego. You see Iacchus, I ‘know’ that everyone reading this thread already understands the difficulty of getting others to believe what we say is true. I begin thinking about why people feel the need to convince others in the first place. In all the great universe one tiny little human, seemingly insignificant, must cry out loudly to be believed. Tell me it isn’t just to satisfy the ego.

I view this thread as something akin to an invitation to a group therapy session where those wishing to can join hands and bemoan their fate. There’s not much point to it except to rehash what has already been touched upon dozens of times in other threads.

There, is that mean enough?