Evidence God Exists

[Watson]

First of all, what evidence could they have had? They lived in a time when the extent of their scientific knowledge was very little. The Bible was not written to scientifically explain the way in which God works, but to explain the spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical processes of God and His relation to mankind.

How could they have had any evidence of supernatural processes and the existence of God if they didn't even understand the natural world?

First off, you are making an assumption in saying that they did not understand the natural world. You don't know that. I don't know that. They may have very well understood the way in which things worked, just not the processes by which it worked. Do you see the distinction? They didn't have microscopes like you or I have access to. They didn't have computers or radar or the instant ability to communicate through tiny machines. They were not technologically advanced, and they could not have been, for technology at the time was limited.

Second, God reveals Himself to us in many ways in this world. Their evidence would have been the same evidence you or I could behold, simply in a different timeframe. And who knows? Maybe the way in which God worked back then was much more fantastical. I don't know, and you don't know, because neither of us were there.

Religions and prophets and mythologies about gods and the afterlife have sprung up all over the world, at a time when no one had any other explanations, because they needed a way to make sense of their lives.

And? Do you claim to offer a better explanation than any of those ancient cultures? In light of the fact that you are one human being with one singular subjective viewpoint, how can you claim to have any better understanding than the societies of old?

It's apparent in the way the 'God' entity is anthropomorphized to have human-like emotions and relational needs.

I agree that many religions anthropomorphize God far too much, far too often. Just look at the Greek gods. It speaks volumes on our tendency to project human emotions and concepts onto things we do not fully understand, but not of God Himself.

(Teehee)

That's interesting. I guess for me, that would be another unnecessary inference, since the process of evolution has everything necessary to unfold by itself.

Except a reason to unfold by itself. Why?

No, I don't mean other people who have certain subjective experiences and attribute them to God. I mean somebody standing next to you when you saw your unambiguous sign of God's existence, and agreed that they, too, had witnessed something divine.

My 'unambiguous' sign of God's existence, huh? What is 'unambiguous' to me may be completely clouded and muddled for you, because you lack the necessary capacity to fully comprehend what I have experienced in the same way I have experienced it. Namely faith and understanding. But very well, I will explain.

I have had experiences in which the world around me was 'arranged' in just such a way as to lead me to my goal, or to direct me down a certain path. Not a literal path like a sidewalk, mind you, but an emotional, mental, and spiritual one. Following this path has proven to not only benefit me, but to work out in such a way as to verify the path's own correctness and arrangement. Essentially, there have been moments in my life that, when looked at as a connected phenomena, can only be explained through some sort of divine prescene at work. And the real kicker?

I was an atheist during several of these moments.

As for someone 'standing right next to me' to make my path valid, why do I need such a thing? My subjective experience is as good as the next person's. And why would you believe one person's testimony of an event over another, or as you suggest, when combined with another? My personal experiences are my own; trust that I have the capacity to understand and evaluate them in an unbiased way. I cannot present you with eyewitness testimony of what I have seen and felt, but I can direct you to individuals who have experienced similar phenomena, sometimes in ways that actually connect with my experiences.

A good friend of mine, were he able to join this conversation, could tell you all about the moments in which he and I have experienced simultaneous or connected moments of serendipity.

I'm not dismissing the validity of your inner experience, I'm sure you really do feel whatever you feel. I'm saying that no subjective claim is sufficient evidence of something that exists 'out there.' There is an objective real world out there, and it can definitely be tapped into. If something's 'true for you,' then no one can argue with that, but that doesn't mean it's true for anyone else.

Then all of science is bunk. All of our claims must be subjective because we are subjective beings. If we have no capacity to go outside of our subjective selves, then having multiple subjective claims lean towards one answer does not go anywhere in proving that that answer is true. Science relies on peer review for giving weight to its answers. But if personal experience is invalid, then science holds no weight whatsoever.