For there to be evidence of God, the term 'God' would need to be sharply defined. As robvalue as ably pointed out on numerous occasions, this is problematic (to say the least).
By way of comparison, let's take unicorns as an example. Everyone (nearly) can agree on what a unicorn is: a horse-like animal with a spiraled horn projecting from its forehead, cloven hooves, a goat's beard and a lion's tail. Apart from the animal itself suddenly appearing on the scene, it is fairly easy to decide what would be evidence for a unicorn: a fossil equine skull with the requisite horn, for example. A find of this type would be unambiguous, because it fits nothing so well as our concept of a unicorn.
What it comes to evidence for God, the problem is more difficult, primarily because God is insubstantial, but also because every single phenomenon that has been attributed to God has a more prosaic and better attested explanation. If you claim, for instance, that God made the universe and then point to the universe as evidence for the existence of God, you immediately need to explain what your claim is better than the evidence for rapid expansion from a primordial point. Another bit of evidence offered for the existence of God is the answering of prayers: you were sick, your prayed to God, you got better - therefore God exists. But sick people who don't pray get better with (for theists) distressing regularity.
Tell me precisely what God is, what God does, what God's parameters are, and I'll tell you what evidence would be required.
Oh, and it can't simply be your own view of God. You definition needs to be unambiguous and universal, or very nearly so. Otherwise, we'll be in a situation where one points at a power drill and loudly proclaims, 'Behold! Evidence for goblins!'
Boru
By way of comparison, let's take unicorns as an example. Everyone (nearly) can agree on what a unicorn is: a horse-like animal with a spiraled horn projecting from its forehead, cloven hooves, a goat's beard and a lion's tail. Apart from the animal itself suddenly appearing on the scene, it is fairly easy to decide what would be evidence for a unicorn: a fossil equine skull with the requisite horn, for example. A find of this type would be unambiguous, because it fits nothing so well as our concept of a unicorn.
What it comes to evidence for God, the problem is more difficult, primarily because God is insubstantial, but also because every single phenomenon that has been attributed to God has a more prosaic and better attested explanation. If you claim, for instance, that God made the universe and then point to the universe as evidence for the existence of God, you immediately need to explain what your claim is better than the evidence for rapid expansion from a primordial point. Another bit of evidence offered for the existence of God is the answering of prayers: you were sick, your prayed to God, you got better - therefore God exists. But sick people who don't pray get better with (for theists) distressing regularity.
Tell me precisely what God is, what God does, what God's parameters are, and I'll tell you what evidence would be required.
Oh, and it can't simply be your own view of God. You definition needs to be unambiguous and universal, or very nearly so. Otherwise, we'll be in a situation where one points at a power drill and loudly proclaims, 'Behold! Evidence for goblins!'
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
