Mar 7, 2013 -- 6:37PM, JCarlin wrote:

Mar 7, 2013 -- 2:08PM, Clardan wrote:

To prove the truth of the God concept you would have to show that it is NECESSARY to explain a single observation ie that no other explanation is sufficient to account for it.

Several documented socially irrational activities attributed to faith in God meet your criterion.  At least for a local God.  Mass halucinations might be an alternative, but you are straying into the paranormal at that point, and belief in God is the simpler and understandable explanation

Give one example of an observation which cannot be reasonably explained except by the existence of a god/s outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 6:49PM, Clardan wrote:

Give one example of an observation which cannot be reasonably explained except by the existence of a god/s outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

But god/s never exist outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 7:00PM, Clardan wrote:

Mar 7, 2013 -- 6:55PM, JCarlin wrote:

Mar 7, 2013 -- 6:49PM, Clardan wrote:

Give one example of an observation which cannot be reasonably explained except by the existence of a god/s outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

But god/s never exist outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

Neither do fairies, elves, unicorns etc etc. The real, independent, existence of faries is not a necessary explanation of the observation of fairies at the bottom of your garden.

What are you disputing with me?

He refuses to acknowledge the distinction between belief in gods and the actual existence of gods.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 7:00PM, Clardan wrote:

Mar 7, 2013 -- 6:55PM, JCarlin wrote:

Mar 7, 2013 -- 6:49PM, Clardan wrote:

Give one example of an observation which cannot be reasonably explained except by the existence of a god/s outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

But god/s never exist outside the mind/s of the observer/s.

Neither do fairies, elves, unicorns etc etc. The real, independent, existence of faries is not a necessary explanation of the observation of fairies at the bottom of your garden.

What are you disputing with me?

You seem to be asserting that in order for a God to "exist" it must have a physical presence sitting on a golden throne somewhere that a believer can lead you to. There are believers who assert exactly that but you have to die to get there.  Personally I have no interest in dying to find out whether or not God exists in that sense. However, I have observable data that God exists as a conceptual entity with real effects on the minds of believers. 

You may of course define God out of existence by insisting on a physical instantiation but if you want to discuss God you should stick to reality which is a conceptual entity.  I have not found any such conceptual entities useful, and in fact most of them are social disasters, but it does not help discussion of God/s to simply argue that the throne is brass.

Mar 7, 2013 -- 9:01AM, teilhard wrote:

I do agree that in these "Discussiins" we very often "talk past each other" because we are NOT "speaking the same Language" ...

Mar 7, 2013 -- 12:10AM, MidnightCougar wrote:

Mar 6, 2013 -- 11:35PM, teilhard wrote:

IOW,

You are so far off what I said, you must have a reading comprehension problem.

Everyone else here speaks English on the forum, allegedly, being an American, you do as well. So, I am forced to wonder at your ability to come up with, essentially the exact opposite of my very simple statement. Is there some inherent dishonesty involved in being a clergyman?

I still await your deigning to enter into discussion when you answer my question from the same post you failed to actually read my response.