Why Must There Be a God?

[_SteelHead]

Mak supplied this on another thread but I thought it fitting here:

[_subgenius]

I can show Carl Sagan existed, you can not do the same for god.

actually, i will call your bluff here as a means to prove the point.
All you can do is "show" "evidence" primarily in the form of testimony that Carl Sagan existed. You might even post a video of Carl, but it will rely on testimony for its authenticity.
But please...."show" on

Ironic ain't it?

[Guest]

Not ironic at all. I can provide physical evidence for Carl Sagan. The Cosmos series for example, coupled with birth records, death records, a multitude of primary sources. All can be corroborated and indepently veriefied.

You can can provide what again for god?

[_moksha]

When science shrugs its shoulders to the really big question, like how all of the multidimensional multiverses began, it is nice to turn to the idea of the prime mover who set things in motion.

If there was no God, Republicans would have to revise their pandering routines.



Mormons could point out that this contingency was covered in their Book of Abraham

[_subgenius]

Not ironic at all. I can provide physical evidence for Carl Sagan. The Cosmos series for example, coupled wit birth records, death records, a multitude of primary sources. All can be corroborated and indepently veriefied.

You can can provide what again for god?

you say you can...but have not.
again, please provide evidence....and then notice, ironically, how you claim validation via "corroborated and indepently veriefied"...which is you saying that "by testimony" you will prove that what you have provided is true.
The only primary source is Carl himself, and even then...a wee bit of testimony is required.

for your edification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony
"n the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence
"To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses. Second, the witness must declare under oath or affirmation that the testimony will be truthful. The purpose of this requirement is to "awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to [be truthful]" (Fed. R. Evid. 603). The oath or affirmation requirement also serves as a ground for perjury if the witness does not testify truthfully. Although the oath frequently invokes the name of God, the witness need not possess any religious beliefs; a secular affirmation is sufficient."

i believe the score is still Evidence(1) Need(1).....

[_SteelHead]

Sub, did you actually read the stuff you provided?

.
.
.
Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony."
.
.
.
Pay attention to "limited", "rationally" etc. Your personal testimony of what God is telling you would hold no weight in a court of law.

Also pay attention to the dictionary entry:

.
.
"To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses."
..
.

Some one's feeling are not admissible. Spiritual eyes are not admissible.

Then again, when did we agree upon the definition for evidence being that which is acceptable in a court of law?

You also obviously have no idea what a primary source is.....

Regardless, there is still readily available evidence for Carl Sagan. For god.... bupkiss.

You have provided neither evidence nor need, but shown that you are great at self delusion. ...

[_subgenius]

Sub, did you actually read the stuff you provided?

Yes, i did Mr Sagan

.
.
.
Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony."
.
.
.
Pay attention to "limited", "rationally" etc. Your personal testimony of what God is telling you would hold no weight in a court of law.

Your snippet here is with specific regards to opinion...like it is your opinion that Carl Sagan was an actual person based upon numerous testimonies.

Also pay attention to the dictionary entry:

.
.
"To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses."
..
.

Some one's feeling are not admissible. Spiritual eyes are not admissible.

Umm, it says based upon any of the senses. If I "saw" God, then....senses!

Then again, when did we agree upon the definition for evidence being that which is acceptable in a court of law?

we never did, but you also did not exclude "spiritual evidence" at which case I still provided "evidence" as you requested.

You also obviously have no idea what a primary source is.....

sure i do, and you have none without relying upon another person's testimony - and nor was "primary source" a part of original request, it was only an offering from you about Carl.

Regardless, there is still readily available evidence for Carl Sagan. For god.... bupkiss.

For Mr Sagan you have yet to provide any, contrary to your boasting......and what you will provide will be hearsay at best. I now require spiritual evidence for your claim that there ever was a Carl Sagan (whereas your requirement for God was much more ambiguous and flexible).

You have provided neither evidence nor need, but shown that you are great at self delusion. ...

evidence was provided and need was provided and as predicted, your presuppositions have delivered the denial.

the score remains the same Mr. Sagan.

[_SteelHead]

And so you have good witnesses with coroborated sources of folk seeing god?

[_subgenius]

And so you have good witnesses with coroborated sources of folk seeing god?

Yep.
But up thread I have already noted one piece of evidence as requested, whereas the real Carl Sagan has yet to stand up.

[_SteelHead]

4. The supernatural is confirmed by the ability to choose otherwise. If you believe that our existence is nothing more than the result of a variety of complex chemical reactions then you must affirm that these reactions are incapable of "reacting" in any other way. Neither vinegar nor baking soda can "choose" to not fizz when mixed. So, your every thought and action must be without option and ergo "you" do not really exist outside of a neurological disorder and "you" cannot be held responsible for anything...."you" are constantly in a state of reacting to environmental influence - without control, motive, nor meaning. Even your disagreement on this topic has no value because it is not of your own device or accord.
But
if you believe that you have the ability to choose otherwise - if your believe you can choose not to fizz, then somehow you have transcended the laws of nature and by definition entered the supernatural....

and the existence of the supernatural is evidence for the possibility of God...ergo, 1 evidence for God

Breaking this down:

The supernatural is confirmed by the ability to choose otherwise. If you believe that our existence is nothing more than the result of a variety of complex chemical reactions then you must affirm that these reactions are incapable of "reacting" in any other way. Neither vinegar nor baking soda can "choose" to not fizz when mixed. So, your every thought and action must be without option and ergo "you" do not really exist outside of a neurological disorder and "you" cannot be held responsible for anything...."

The ability to choose does not defy natural law. You still choose to act, but your actions are bound by physical law. This statement of yours is meaningless. My thought and action are not without option, I can dream up about anything, but that does not defy natural law. If I decide that I will defy gravity, and actually could then you would have a point. You premise is flawed. You have not demonstrated where a person actually can defy natural law.

and the existence of the supernatural is evidence for the possibility of God

You have yet to provide evidence for the supernatural.

So, you have a flawed premise, your conclusion does not follow from the argument, and hence you have provided 0 evidence for anything.