Can anyone dispute the following statement?

"Any of the thousands of proposed 'gods' MAY actually exist, and if so MAY influence human lives (and proposed 'afterlives'); however, verifiable evidence showing which, if any, are real is lacking."

"Verifiable evidence" as used here indicates information more substantial than opinion, belief, emotion, conjecture, testimonial, psychotic experience, folklore, legend, fable, fiction and fantasy – information that any interested person can use to determine truth and accuracy of claims and stories.

the generalized statement assumes that scientific verification is the only valid verification,,,

I never 'verified' my dad was my dad, so I could not verify it to someone else without documents, and even those can be faked,

or DNA , which has to be processed by humans who also can be fraudulent or purposefully dishonest in their assessment

so the integreity of the source of 'verification' must be trusted by those needing the information verified

the only ones who could verify without a doubt or possibility of error would be my mom and dad , yet they could only verify it for themselves

they couldn't verify it for others in any absolute terms, besides documents whose creators hold integrity amongst those seeking verification

your father can be verified as your father... many tests can do this, dna is the most reliable... there are no "tests" to verify a god...

As the originator of the statement, no such assumption was made.

What other forms of verification would you (generic term) accept to indicate that one of the less popular "gods" was "the real one"?



Agreed. A person can be satisfied with statements from trusted people.

However, when or if they attempt to convince others, some form of verification may be necessary (particularly if the parties are not known to one another -- or if the matter is of great importance).

There are examples of fatherhood being misidentified (deliberately or otherwise) by trusted sources -- though motherhood is seldom open to doubt.



If it is important, DNA can be tested independently and anonymously by several or many labs -- thereby reducing to approximately zero the chance of dishonesty or error.



Agreed, granting of trust is a personal decision.



There is a possibility that even they could be mistaken or misleading (to themselves or others).



Exactly.

And, when matters become of critical or extreme importance sources of information and verification are typically very carefully examined / questioned / checked, etc.

How important is the matter of which, if any, gods to worship?

no, you are missing the point here

a test can STATE that my dad is my dad, but that is only VERIFICATION in so far as people trust the integrity of the process and the persons who printed the document

if they weren't there in mom and dads pocket for a couple months to know they were together with each other and only each other,they cant KNOW that they are my parents

they can only look at a test, after a PERSON has printed the results of another test

that is, there has to be some point where the integrity of a source is trusted(faith) to be incapable of err...

it comes back to integrity , and balance

balance of personal knowledge and experience, with information from others

its like choosing to believe Christopher Columbus discovered America, we don't know he did, many trust he did, merely by the passing down of that 'history' as factual

so, worshippins is also a choice that correlates with our personal experiences and knowledge, and the information passed down from others,,

kind of like someone saying they're born in Hawaii, but actually born in africa, and anyone could have forged the BC, huh.... is that what your saying?

anyone can forge ANYTHING

but we still choose to hold some sources to a standard of integrity and trust

that's what I am saying

depends on the situation or who's saying what, i guess... if 30 crackheads are all saying the same thing that makes no sense, no one will believe them... if thirty doctors are all in agreement, but not making any sense, they have a better chance of being believed...

true, status often 'earns' trust

and humans with status are capable of abusing the trust

Much of scholarly (not just scientific) investigation attempts to avoid depending on "trust" by replacing it with verification.

When a scholar claims to have discovered or learned something they expect to be challenged to demonstrate what they say is truthful and accurate AND to provide the means by which others can duplicate their discovery or learning. That which cannot be verified is regarded as questionable (at best).

A recent example of the process: When researchers claimed to have produced "cold fusion" their results could not be demonstrated or duplicated by others, leading to the conclusion that cold fusion had not been produced. Was it mistake or was it fraud? That really matters less than that it was not accepted as truthful and accurate.

Outside the scientific world, it is not uncommon for what has been presented as the work of a great artist is shown to be fraudulent.

In both these examples, trust without verification would have produced false conclusions.

"Just trust me" may be applicable in some cases (particularly between people who are well known to each other) or in situations of little importance. However, as importance increases "trust" becomes more hazardous.

For instance, few of us would be gullible enough to buy real estate just trusting an unknown seller's claim that they own it and that there are no liens or judgments or disputes of the title. Instead, we hire an attorney or title company to "search the title" and verify the claim (or discover discrepancies).

It seems ironic, therefore, that requests for verification of claims and stories about supernatural entities are dismissed and replaced by "just believe."

Is the matter of which, if any, of the thousands of religions to follow NOT important enough to make sure one is following the right path? Is it wise to simply accept whatever is popular in one's culture and assume that it is the right one?

Your definition of 'verifiable evidence' eliminates all possibilities except for God knocking on your frontdoor and inviting you to spend a day with Him, just so you might consider His existence.

All non-believers imply this same reduntantly, close-minded form of questioning.

Most of the 'knowledge' people possess is from another source, from another person, in another time period and so on.

scientific facts are just as much based in faith as religion. That is why both are debated, have been debated, and will be debated until the end of time.

Since you seem to appreciate specifics...a DNA test doesnt prove family relation to an absolute degree. Thats why its not 100% guaranteed.

The test only establishes markers that may/or may not be readily interpreted by the tester's preconceived assumptions taught to them by coworker's and professor's ideas on how to interpre- based on books and/or papers written by others- that my or may not be correctly based on more other's interpretations.

David,its obvious that God is calling you to come and embrace the truth about him as revealed by the bible,hence your interest in Him often.Jesus and his saving power is real but faith is what is required,not proof.Unfortunately,your country,US needs missionaries to bring them back to godliness and genuine christianity their early fathers practiced and even sent missionaries to Africa.Thats why you are David.

That is true, it can't be proven or disproven. I also agree that opinion, belief, emotion, conjecture, testimonial, psychotic experience, folklore, legend, fable, fiction and fantasy does not prove in any way that those things exist. Proof would have to be something that you can show to the world, and also show why its proof. I don't accept gap theory or other people opinions about supernatural beliefs only quantifiable facts.

Hijack!!

Verification does NOT mean absolute assurance of truth. Nothing of human origin is incapable of error ("infallible") or known to be absolutely free of error ("inerrant").

Most people appear to use some level of verification and reasoning to decide what to accept as truthful; however, "acceptance level" varies greatly and is often inconsistently applied.

Independent testing by several disconnected sources may be doubted or dismissed by the same person who accepts folklore or testimonial as truthful.



Actually, the definition eliminates the most untrustworthy, least reliable sources of "information." Any person or group can make up a story and give testimonials that it is absolute truth. Folklore and legend can present as truth claims that supernatural entities perform feats beyond human capabilities. Delusions and hallucinations are not unknown or uncommon, etc.

Given our choice, would we be likely to trust an important decision to information from legends and fables OR carefully conducted experiments?

Rather than requiring a personal visit, I would accept a convergence of evidence of the existence of a "god" presented by wide ranging sources. For instance (example), if reports from many nations claimed that one of the "gods" had visited world leaders individually and simultaneously to tell them to stop making war, I would conclude that such events had actually happened (though granting a small possibility otherwise).

On the other hand, I would not be equally inclined to accept as truthful a claim by a single group that such a visitation has occurred to them.

Does that make sense? If it does, the same can be applied to claims by religious groups that a "god" visited them and/or gave instructions.

Many religious proponents seem to accept opinion, belief, emotion, conjecture, testimonial, psychotic experience, folklore, legend, fable, fiction and fantasy as evidence of the existence of their favorite "god" while condemning as false all competing "god beliefs" based on the same level of "evidence."

If (since) evidence supporting one god belief is comparable to evidence supporting competing god beliefs, on what basis can one be identified as truthful and others as false?

Religionists often take the position, "Since nothing can be known to be absolutely true, others should accept my favored stories and claims as truthful even though evidence is weak or lacking."

Of course, religionists also frequently say, "Don't believe what is claimed by competing religions because what they say is false."

Is that rational when "evidence" is similar?

love can't be verified . So therefore it dosen't exist.