Evidence to a believer is a subjective thing.
Then it isn't evidence; it's impression.
It may not even require the words in the bible. Evidence is more about a personal revelation, an experience that leaves the experiencee with no other conclusion than divine intervention.
As opposed to a simple mystery rooted in ignorance? Some observed phenomenon cann't be explained so what is left but " godly miracle"?
My understanding of the divine does not fit into any religious or spiritual philosophy existing on the planet. It is based purely on my personal experiences and often changes and morphs with each new experience. It does not have anything to do with a god out there or some all seeing being separate from me. I think, in the end, it is always up to the individual to come to their own conclusions whether the divine is real or imaginary. I doubt that it matters what one believes as long as they become their truth, live their lives according to their beliefs. It also doesn't mean that I support the right of anybody to interfere in the lives of others. Above all, do no harm.
That's fine, CLiff, but evidence is evidence and impression is impression (or perception, interpretation, etc). Evidence points to facts. Not all impressions or perceptions point to facts.
'force' fits nicely in discussions I often have with 'real life' friends, in much the same manner I was discussing it in the recent evolution thread.
Sounds reasonable. Everything in the universe is composed of a "force".
So, I have to say, if Gerry needs to reread, so do you.
Not really. Dexter said the same thing in a later post but in a different way.
Cliffy is right... staunch believers in a biblical god will find evidence that corroborates his existence for them. There are museums dedicated to proving biblical history and disproving evolution even. He didn't say it would be right by your standard, just that they would find it.
Yes, I explained the most likely reason for that. (The bit about reaching a conclusion and then scrounging for whatever evidence that supports the conclusion, rather than letting the evidence point to a reasonable conclusion.)
The first thing that strikes me about this argument, is that you seem to assert that you or I would be able to tell the difference between a universe with a god, or without, when humanity can't agree on which this universe is. If you don't have two universes to compare side by side, one with a proven god, with a proven absence of god, how exactly do you propose to state what god's effect looks like in a universe?
Frankly, the whole argument boils down to hubby and I trying to pick paint colours without reference. It's gray. No, it's blue. No, it's more green than blue. Nope, definitely blue. You're colour blind, you don't get say.
lol Good point.
Typically when the intelligent design discussion is demonstrated as 'badly flawed', it is when atheists hold it up against the rigid rules of an omnipotent, all knowing, perfect god.
I spose that's sometimes true.
Intelligent design as a broader mechanism of some force kick starting evolution, has turned out a much more elegant and functional product than most human engineering is capable of. So it still speaks to a game plan of broader scope and intelligence than our own. I find that a fascinating issue to ponder on.
Forgetting that life most likely started as acids, proteins, and maybe other bits that landed here on a meteorite or asteroid and developed from the mix? And the probabilities are high that the same has happened in other parts of the galaxy and universe. Humans have "created" life from those ingredients so we do have the technology.
But, again, it ****s with people's ability to debate the issue if you just keep finding more questions instead of accepting rigid definitions.
Quite. However, laws are laws. They are irrefutable and rigid, so some things are quite rigid and it's reasonable to base rigid comments upon them.
I always had the impression you're more than just a pretty face. Waay more. 
