Evidence God Exists: Part II

[rjh4 is back]

That's nice, now show evidence of your invisible friend.

As I have told you before, Zen, I think the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of God. Does the existence of the universe necessitate that conclusion? No, but it is evidence nonetheless, even if you take the existence of the universe as evidence of something else altogether.

Evidence is not something that is such that it necessitates only one conclusion. If you hold that, I think you have a very narrowminded view of what evidence is. Evidence is that which one relies upon as support for their conclusions. Even in science, it is possible for different scientists to look at the same body of evidence and conclude different and even incompatible things (even if you exclude scientists who are creationists).

I also think the existence of morals is evidence of God. Again, does the existence of morals necessitate the conclusion that God exists? Certainly not, but I think it is the best explanation. I know many here hold that morals are manmade and only based on what society (the majority) holds as appropriate but I simply do not agree. This has come up a couple of times in my conversations here. To those who hold that what the majority of a society says is right is right, I have presented the following:

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Usually the answer is no and the reason given is because the member of the minority has rights also. But if your position is that morals (right and wrong) are only determined by the majority of a society, then on what basis would the members of the minority have rights at all? If right and wrong are determined my majority of a society, then it seems to me it would logically follow that a member of a society only has the rights granted by that majority. Consequently, this apparently inconsistent position of some, to me is evidence that even those who hold that morals are manmade and based on what the majority in a society says recognize that minority members of a society have certain rights separate and distinct from simply what a majority gives them. I think this logically leads to a conclusion that such rights come from an ultimate source which is God.

So to me, all of this is evidence of God even though you might not be convinced of it. Furthermore, that is why I consider statements like "There is no evidence for the existence of God" inaccurate and unreasonable. I think statements such as "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists" are more appropriate and accurate.

---

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

I agree with that. And I do not think I have ever said such a thing here. Do I think/believe that God exists...obviously I do.

---

Unlike believers, I was not trying to proclaim some absolute truth.

It sure sounded like it. That is why I was questioning you.