Why do Americans believe in God despite all the evidence?????

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

Since his physical presence has never been demonstrated, it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he exists, he doesn't want to manifest himself physically. This changes nothing to the question of God's existence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

Since his physical presence has never been demonstrated, it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he exists, he doesn't want to manifest himself physically. This changes nothing to the question of God's existence.

But most people who believe in God do believe that he has manifested himself physically at some point.

Regardless, that's beside the point. Your claim was that God's existence definitionally somehow fell outside of the empirically observable. That's hardly true.

I think most people who believe in God are wrong on many issues, though not necessarily on God's existence.

Put it as you want, but I've never heard any convincing rational argument for or against God's existence, neither do I think it's possible to make one.