“My personal belief is that elves come into my kitchen at night and bake cookies.”
“Look, not only are there no elves, we checked your kitchen. There were also no cookies. Your claims seem not to be factual.”
“Respect my beliefs, damnit!!!”
Nope in post #220, he stated:
"Nope. You were also one of the posters to offer the Bible up as a cite for your claims. The Bible was offered as having some sort of veracity, and it was shown to be fictional. "
Maybe someone has already said this (I am not going to wade through a 5 page GD thread), but asking a religious believer for evidence of their god is a bit like asking a scientist why we should worship the Schrödinger equation. Science isn’t about worshiping anything and religion isn’t about evidence, at least not the sort of evidence that science might recognize.
If you actually want to understand what is going on with religious people, don’t ask them why they think their god exists, but why they worship Him (or He, or It, or whatever).
People who ask about evidence of the existence of gods, and (perhaps more surprisingly) religious people who try to offer answers (or seek a space in which to fit evidence of God by denying already well established scientific explanations), just aren’t getting what religion is really about. The religious believers who do real harm are those who do not really understand religion and who think it is meant to do something like what science does so much better. If they were merely ignorant of science, it would not really matter very much, but they are ignorant of religion.
I say this incidentally, as someone who has been firmly atheist for about 40 years now. Nevertheless, I do not think religious people are necessarily fools. (A lot are fools, of course, and some are dangerous fools, but a lot of atheists are fools too.)
So your “peace out” was fictional? 
I’m not sure that’s what he was saying, but I won’t bother contesting the point because FinnAgain does seem to be taking that stance in more recent posts. That said, lots of people have agreed there are historical facts in the Bible even if the general narrative and the supernatural events are fictional (as many of them demonstrably are). Your stance on atheists is and has always been completely wrongheaded.
At least read the OP, where the request to see evidence was made after someone claimed to have such evidence in the first place.
How about providing some cites for your claims, or should I take your suggestive errors at face value? Of course, this is the problem when I have to take on a dozen people attacking me from different angles. I have to suddenly be an expert in science, geology, and now geneologies. Otherwise, you insult my intelligence.
Christian apologists certainly have not run away from any of your challenges.
From a quick google search:
From wikipedia:
Several theories have been advanced to explain the divergence of the two gospel genealogies, most notably:
That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers.
Legal inheritance.
That Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph.
That Matthew’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph.
That one or both of the genealogies are invented.
Frankly, I’m more amazed at the numerous Messianic prophecies in the OT that came completely true with the life and death of Jesus Christ.
Fictional works can have factual bits. The city of Dublin really does exist, even if Ulysses is fiction. There was a Revolutionary War, even if Johnny Tremain is fiction. There really are swords, and armor, and rings, even if Lord of the Rings was fiction. And there really are old kingdoms which were talked about in the Tanakh, even if it too is fiction.
I’m reposting this because it may have been lost on the previous page. It deals with the work of Dr. Amit Goswani a leading quantum physicist. You asked for evidence not proof. Well, I submit this to the evidence pile.
Still wading through it.
Again, I know there are a lot more quantum physicists who denounce the claims offered by Dr. Goswani but I found it very interesting. Just because the majority of scientists say one thing, doesn’t make it so. Let’s look at Capurnicus, he too was the minority in his day. So No this isn’t proof, but someone with some credentials is looking into and offering evidence. He’s no crack pot.
You need a citation that the idea of people returning to their ancestral homes for a tax census is absurd?
Again, the irony!
This list includes two alternate theories (the levirate marriage and the inheritance, although I have no idea why the Jews would care about that) and three theories that involve either an error in the Bible or an admission that at least one of the genealogies is made up. That doesn’t do much to advance your claim about the Bible being historical and Jesus’ lineage being accurate.
Of course you are. You do overlook everything else.
I have to admit that exchanges like this sets off some alarms:
“Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it.”
Then…where did the first conscious sentient being come from?
This looks like a fairly commonplace re-casting of the typical Medieval proofs of God’s existence.
It also suggests that, at some time in the past, God was unconscious. Interesting.
Which just goes to show that you should always let sleeping gods lie.
He says “exist”, not “create”, so I don’t know how that is supposed to be an objection. What if I say that, the universe, in order to exist, requires that something exist; would you ask “where did the first thing come from”?
Given what you say above, I presume you mean the cosmological arguments. I would say it doesn’t, but it looks similar in type to Berkeley’s position.
I didn’t realize they did scientific experiments into quantum machanics in Medieval times. Interesting. Also the idea that outside of the multiverse there exists something from which the sentient being existed before and that the universe is simply its dream made real, allows for it to come from some place. It’s the snake eating its tail argument though. That’s the mystery. Where did it all really begin, if there existed something before the universe? My point is you asked for evidence and I would suggest this is on some level a tiny piece of evidence. The case of course isn’t solved, but…
Seeing as how quantum theory wouldn’t exist for several hundred years, they didn’t. He’s saying the comment is similar to philosophical arguments that were made about God in the Middle Ages. He didn’t say anything about expertiments.
I like to look at the very large and the very small and see the patterns that emerge. As a fiction writer I’m allowed to take large leaps and I imagine the question, from reading the article, that what if we are all equivalent to atomic particles existing (and informing), inside of a much larger scaled brain that is God? Please forgive me. I’ve seen an artisitic rendering of the universe from a distance and it resembles a brain cell, fairly closely. In the multiverse view, each universe is an individual cell, and black holes are synapses between them, sharing information. Information is sucked out of our universe through black holes and could in theory feed into another universe so, why not? If we are all connected, so are we connected to the universe and then the multiverse and to the brane (brain in my imagined proposal). So to go off point but I had to vent.
I think this is the point in the conservation where somebody is supposed to take out the bong.