You're cluttering up bandwidth.

who finds the need for such evidence old-fashioned. Or so I assume from your slathering.

Some people do find the ability of religious believers to present and justify such evidence relevant, even if you don't. You're free not to add your "clutter" to the discussion if that's your problem. But since many, many posters here find it necessary to flood this group with all manner of religious blogging and commentary (most of it vapid and thought-free), it's entirely appropriate to question whether they ever seek out articles that go to the real heart of religion, instead of just those that promote their own agenda or make them feel fuzzy-wuzzy.

I suggest you ask (as I have) the people who spend their entire sad days trolling the internet over slow connections for tripe to post here. If those articles were out there, they would have found them and posted them gleefully by now.

Apparently, he's already having it between himself and what he imagines to be you. Must be that microscope he uses.

And I the God of Noodles thank thee for thy restraint.

To demonstrate our appreciation, please accept this heartfelt door-prize:

seriously? Your objection to this op in the religion group is that it is "cluttering up bandwidth"? One post? What substantive issue in this group is it obscuring"?

their usual content-free stink bombs. Perhaps just annoyed that vapid, disingenuous and shit-stirring OPs from the other side are being exposed for what they are.

Never stopped you before.

If the evidence doesn't exist (within a range of possibilities) then it simply requires no response.

that religions claim "the actual, physical existence of their god(s)?"

Some do, most don't.

That's what makes the OP - again - dishonest flamebait.

If this question were asked this way in a courtroom, the questioner would be roundly ridiculed. Every jurisdiction has developed very stringent rules of evidence to prevent these charades.

I wouldn't expect experts on/adherents to, to respond to this thread. Because it wouldn't apply to them.

But there are, as you say, some that DO claim such evidence.

That's what makes it indiscriminate, broad brush flamebait as opposed to an honest question.

"Religious believers-which religion writers have the best and most convincing objective evidence for the actual, physical existence of their god(s)?"

If there isn't any, then silence is the answer. It's only flame bait if it pisses you off that you can't cite any such evidence. Does it?


"Which religious bloggers do the best job of dismissing the need for such evidence as old-fashioned?"
I would have said Dinesh D'Souza. But not my hill to defend.

Is this based on a misunderstanding of the word "physical" or the word "existence" or the word "evidence"?

If the OP was asking for evidence that would be accepted in a court of law then all anecdotal and hearsay evidence has to be excluded as does writings by unknown authors about the words of authority figures for whom there is little or no evidence.

A different statement entirely.

Nice try.

Objective evidence for the actual physical evidence of their god?

Give me a frickin' break. I've been waiting for that one my whole life.

Can you say "Oxymoron" which is NOT the bleach that Billy Mays used to hawk on TV?

But what else can they do? Admit that the huge cultural forces that they try so hard to lend legitimacy to are, at bottom, based on nothing but human delusions and emotional inadequacies? Admit that their cognitive dissonance is that strong and that deeply rooted?

As in material evidence of spiritual concepts.

Knock yourself out looking for it.

physical world. (Indeed, caused/built the physical world.)

Come now, be honest. It is a fair question.

It's fair to look for physical evidence of claimed miracles or physical phenomena but they're two different things.

I could see, perhaps, a charred track of molten stone where the pillar of smoking fire touched down being found at biblical Mt. Sinai as possibly credible physical evidence. Or a trail of BattleField Detectives-like armor and remains at the bottom of the sea along the lines of what was discussed in exodus as being possibly compelling physical evidence.

Etc.

There aren't a lot of credible natural phenomena that could lead to that.

But story-telling was the singlemost effective method of imparting information up until 500 years ago. They are for the most part narrative, didactic literary devices. Debunking one, or thousands, of them doesn't really debunk the notion of a Creator God, which is at its root a philosophical expression of an act of faith.

It asked FOR some. Which certainly could exist.


As in the 'do you convert people' thread, I recounted one about a friend of mine, that he held about the walls of Jericho. For which there is some physical evidence. The issue was worth delving into.

Like I said elsewhere, I don't think religious beliefs will rise or fall on scientific investigation. The strongest challenge to them I find to be philosophical.

there are significant philosophical challenges to, for instance/specific, the Abrahamic tradition, and physical evidence seems unlikely or not forthcoming, yet in fairness, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

posted for the sole purpose of allowing the OP to trash "religionists" under the pretense of asking a meaningless question. Thanks for clarifying your support for the post's inherent dishonesty.

But it's still a valid/interesting question.

the post's inhrrent dishonesty. How many current religions hinge on or claim a "physical" existence for a deity or deities? Were the op an honest question, it would identity such faiths and put the inquiry specifically to their adherents.

God came to Earth in the physical presence of his own son and performed miracles to convince the people of who he was.
No one makes such claims.

And many different physical criteria that could prove or disprove.

I accept the charge that the question contains some level of snark, but I think you are protesting a bit too much about the 'dishonesty' of it. It IS a valid question/request.

Remember that the question does not ask for physical manifestations of a divine presence but for proof of a deity that is in itself a physical being.

Broadly convincing to most Abrahamic faiths. To my knowledge, the search for biblical mt Sinai is still on, so that's a bridge beyond, but it's a start.

In that location, a yearlong encampment for an appropriate number of people period specific to the exodus, again, would make for interesting evidence. Etc.

is responsive to the actual questions. You have, however, made clear that you cannot name a single current faith based on a physically existing deity.

Which in turn highlights the dishonesty of the original post.

Thanks for playing.

s?


Physical or non-physical?

What would you call Jesus? Physical or non-physical?

Don't play bullshit games with me and pretend you're winning just because I refuse to join in.

because you can't respond factually or rationally.

How many Jews do you know who worship fire or clouds? How about Christians or Muslims? Devout members of those faiths who read the Exodus story literally would call the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire temporary manifestations of God's presence. I'd call them beautiful images from the Jewish foundation epic.

In traditional Christian theology, Jesus is the Second Person of the completely noncorporeal Trinity, an integral part of the Godhead from before the beginning of creation and existing eternally beyond its end. This aspect of God entered time and history for around 33 years by taking on human form and identity as one Jesus of Nazareth. At the end of those 30-some years, the Second Person returned to its original noncorporeal state and so remains.

Me, I'd call him a Jewish rabbi who had the courage to take on corruption and oppression by the local and Roman authorities. He lost his life but won resoundingly in the end.

to leave behind physical evidence. (Plus the encampment itself.) They DO worship the Abrahamic god, and that event is allegedly a point in time/place that it manifested itself as a physical thing.

There are physical icons held to possibly be evidence of jesus himself, such as the Shroud of Turin.

Unconvincing to me, to be sure, but purported physical evidence of concepts of gods widely worshipped today.

The op didn't ask for physical evidedence of a god's presence, still less for evidence that supports Biblical texts.

He asked for proof of the physical existence of a god. Those are three very different things.

I read his post to be inclusive of the type of evidence I have suggested as a possible valid answer to his or her request.

I will ask for you, if you think there's too much baggage here.

The OP has passed up several opportunities to clarify if he felt his words were being misconstrued. Any change at this point would just be an admission that he made a rather stupid post.

Not one.

that it precludes an honest answer. It asks for proof of a premise that no one here has claimed.

I offered multiple possible answers to the question. None of which I believe are real, but it wasn't an effort to think of any of them. Whether anyone claimed it as a premise is uninteresting. The question remains valid.

If literally no one here is willing to answer it, silence is an acceptable answer as well.

The question you answered was "Is there physical evidence of a god's existence?"

The question in the op asked for evidence of the existence of a physical god.

Those are two very different questions.

Certainly an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god can manifest itself physically, non-coporeally, or both at the same time, at a whim.

You're not placing limitations on god, are you?


The bible claims multiple instances of events wherein god, or his activities have been claimed to have manifested in physical action/presence.

All he wanted was the opportunity to post the supposedly scathing reply in #10. (And he's going to post it whether anyone bites on his flamebait or not.)

lol, just kidding.

that people here swear actually happened that can only be explained by the presence of a God.
But there is also no evidence that God exists, even though he was crucial in all these occurrences.
But there can be no evidence for them lest it interferes with faith, except there is written confirmation of these events that prove they happened.

"And go round and round and round in the circle game"

about what can only be explained by "god". Generally, they are just finding confirmation of something they've been indoctrinated to believe without questioning for a long time. It's very easy to find evidence that you find convincing in such circumstances.

for them to produce the evidence.

we can ask, we just won't get any.