Originally posted by GregM
How is God more plausible that Russell's Teapot?

There is physical evidence of God, none of a teapot.

Originally posted by Acemaster
There is physical evidence of God, none of a teapot.

What a load of rot. Provide some of this "physical evidence of God".

Originally posted by Acemaster
What do you expect? Do you actually believe that someone, somewhere has documented my personal experiance on the internet? If you happen to believe that, then you, sir, are the deluded one.

So basically, you have NO OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So basically, you have NO OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

WRONG!!!! I didn't say that. Just because there isn't an internet on MY PERSONAL EXPERIANCE does not mean there is no evidence.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of rot. Provide some of this "physical evidence of God".

The existance of everything.

Originally posted by Acemaster
The existance of everything.

Well, the existence of everything only proves that everything exists. It certainly doesn't prove how it got there.

For example. You sit down on a bus. There is a $10 note on the seat. Now, that $10 is definitely there - you can say that much. What you cannot say from the evidence alone is whether someone purposely put the note there, or it fell from someone's pocket, or it was the bus conductor or whether it magically popped into existence.

Existence is not proof of God, just proof of existence.

Originally posted by Acemaster
WRONG!!!! I didn't say that. Just because there isn't an internet on MY PERSONAL EXPERIANCE does not mean there is no evidence.

Well, you didn't actually say anything.

Let me make Howee's test again to you.

Show us one single documented case anywhere, where God's "pressure" was measured or documented in any scientific way.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, you didn't actually say anything.

Let me make Howee's test again to you.

Show us one single documented case anywhere, where God's "pressure" was measured or documented in any scientific way.

I'm not going to search the internet for something that I don't know how to find. Tell me what to Google search.

Originally posted by Acemaster
I'm not going to search the internet for something that I don't know how to find. Tell me what to Google search.

Don't bother.
The point of Scott's posts are: there is no evidence.

Originally posted by amannion
Don't bother.
The point of Scott's posts are: there is no evidence.

Maybe not documented. But there are many, many , many people who have felt and heard God.

Originally posted by Acemaster
Maybe not documented. But there are many, many , many people who have felt and heard God.

That's not good enough if you're after scientific proof.
I can tell you I've felt and heard the tooth fairy. You smile and shake your head, but it's a genuine enough feeling to me. Proof enough isn't it?
Of course not.

Originally posted by amannion
That's not good enough if you're after scientific proof.
I can tell you I've felt and heard the tooth fairy. You smile and shake your head, but it's a genuine enough feeling to me. Proof enough isn't it?
Of course not.

Did the tooth fairy forgive your sins? Comfort you? Keep your from falling and killing yourself? Relieve you of pain? I doubt it.

Originally posted by Acemaster
Did the tooth fairy forgive your sins? Comfort you? Keep your from falling and killing yourself? Relieve you of pain? I doubt it.

Meaningless questions.
It might very well be that the tooth fairy did these things for me - or at least, I THINK these things were done for me.
Your claim that these things - forgiving sins, comforting, and so on - somehow prooves god is pointless. All I have is your word that any of these things actually happened. Just as, for the tooth fairty you only have my word.
Now you rightly choose not to believe me because the tooth fairy is a childish fantasy. But what about god? You make no other arguments for its existenec other than you believe it a whole lot more than the tooth fairy.
So what?

Originally posted by amannion
Don't bother.
The point of Scott's posts are: there is no evidence.

I disagree. If you look at what is happening here Scotty moves from talking about evidence and then drifts into talking about "proof" . It depends what context one talks about evidence. For scotty the only evidence possible is that which can constitute scientific proof , however , ace is talking about evidence nonetheless. His evidence does not wash with scientists but it washes with him and that's what matters. Many Christians would say there is evidence of God's activity in the world , because it is not scientific does not discount it as evidence , it just means that it is not proof for others. Much depends on how we interpret the world around us and our experiences. We all see different things.

Originally posted by amannion
That's not good enough if you're after scientific proof.
I can tell you I've felt and heard the tooth fairy. You smile and shake your head, but it's a genuine enough feeling to me. Proof enough isn't it?
Of course not.

That's not good enough if you're after scientific proof. AMMANION

And some of us are and some of us aren't. The most important thing is whether the evidence is convincing to the individual not whether it can be proved to some wider scientific community. If I offered you a) absolute scientific proof of God's existence and passionate , intimate love for you OR b) an intimate on going personal experience of his love and his spirit guiding you through life....which would you choose? With a) you would have knowledge but it would be dead knowledge with no personal relevance with b) you would know something completely different.

Jesus said we would know the truth , not that we would have proof that it was true. It's a subtle difference. Knowing God and proving he exists are two different journeys.