Evidence God Exists

[Justtristo]

A person I know said once that if somebody found scientific evidence for the existence of god, he/she would win a nobel prize.

[Anomalocaris]

You may be confusing evidence with proof. You may be confusing strong evidence with weak evidence. In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists. Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god. The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

The fact that the authors of the Bible describe the geography of the region in which they lived is not evidence that God exists.

Anymore than an accurate description of your country, your city, your street, your house, your personal library and what you had for dinner on Christmas eve in a story about Santa Clause coming down your chimney counts as evidence of the existence of Santa Clause.

[MysterMenace]

You may be confusing evidence with proof. You may be confusing strong evidence with weak evidence. In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists. Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god. The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

The fact that the authors of the Bible describe the geography of the region in which they lived is not evidence that God exists.

It is if god told them to write that.

---

A person I know said once that if somebody found scientific evidence for the existence of god, he/she would win a nobel prize.

What they should have said was "scientific proof".

---

You may be confusing evidence with proof. You may be confusing strong evidence with weak evidence. In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists. Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god. The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

The fact that the authors of the Bible describe the geography of the region in which they lived is not evidence that God exists.

Anymore than an accurate description of your country, your city, your street, your house, your personal library and what you had for dinner on Christmas eve in a story about Santa Clause coming down your chimney counts as evidence of the existence of Santa Clause.

Explain why that is not evidence, without assuming beforehand that Santa Claus does not exist.

[leo-rcc]

A person I know said once that if somebody found scientific evidence for the existence of god, he/she would win a nobel prize.

A Nobel prize, Templeton money, he or she could probably get any kind of grant or other financial backing for any study object ever after. More than that, the vast overwhelming majority of scientists would change their minds and become theists.

And MysterMenace: Proof exists only in mathematics and logic. Science works with evidence, not proof.

[orogenicman]

Explain why that is not evidence, without assuming beforehand that Santa Claus does not exist.

Erm, if you assume beforehand that santa claus (or God) exists, then what's the point of needing evidence?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists.

Actually, taking the premise that 'the Bible is true' to mean "what the Bible says is true" then that would absolutely mean that God exists because the Bible says God exists. Obviously though, why the fuck would the Bible be true?

Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

The Bible is full of shit by the way.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god.

No.

The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

No because none of the things related to God written in the Bible are remotely sound. Nevermind all the other loads of bullshit in it that is nonsense like Noah's Arc and people resurrecting and all that shite.

Apparently, human intelligence is not the work of god.

Obviously not because he doesn't exist.

[downbeatplumb]

In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists.
Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god.
The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

Theres a real train station at Kings cross therefore Harry Potter is real.

That is just as valid as the rather odd assertion you just made.

All of you are just muggles.

[Anomalocaris]

Anymore than an accurate description of your country, your city, your street, your house, your personal library and what you had for dinner on Christmas eve in a story about Santa Clause coming down your chimney counts as evidence of the existence of Santa Clause.

Explain why that is not evidence, without assuming beforehand that Santa Claus does not exist.

You don't need to assume anything about Santa Clause to see that accurate descriptions of your country, your city, your street, your house, your personal library and what you had for dinner on Christmas eve have anything to do with santa clause.

Such unrelated items, true or not, has zero impact on the likelihood of the truth of the Santa Clause in exactly the same way that prefacing claims of Santa Clause with the evident truth of 2+2 = 4 would nothing to the claim.

Shielding claims wth a wall of unrelated propositions is a totally dishonest and intellectually bankrupt tactic that seems to be the best many Christians can come up with the defend their "faith".

[MysterMenace]

A person I know said once that if somebody found scientific evidence for the existence of god, he/she would win a nobel prize.

A Nobel prize, Templeton money, he or she could probably get any kind of grant or other financial backing for any study object ever after. More than that, the vast overwhelming majority of scientists would change their minds and become theists.

And MysterMenace: Proof exists only in mathematics and logic. Science works with evidence, not proof.

This is factually wrong. Mathematical proof and logical proof exists only in mathematics and logic. If you think that no scientific discipline has a concept of proof you are not paying attention.

---

Explain why that is not evidence, without assuming beforehand that Santa Claus does not exist.

Erm, if you assume beforehand that santa claus (or God) exists, then what's the point of needing evidence?

You misunderstood the statement. Why would eyewitness written testimony not count as evidence?

---

[...]In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists.

Actually, taking the premise that 'the Bible is true' to mean "what the Bible says is true" then that would absolutely mean that God exists because the Bible says God exists. Obviously though, why the fuck would the Bible be true?

Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

The Bible is full of shit by the way.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god.

No.

The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

No because none of the things related to God written in the Bible are remotely sound. Nevermind all the other loads of bullshit in it that is nonsense like Noah's Arc and people resurrecting and all that shite.

Apparently, human intelligence is not the work of god.

Obviously not because he doesn't exist.

If you assume the conclusion is false you will have a very biased interpretation of any evidence presented to support the conclusion.

I note that in discussing what constitutes evidence you are extremely agitated by the hypothetical example.
Your credibility for rational analysis really takes a hit with that kind of irrelevant bias.

---

In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists.
Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

So there is a foundation for the evidence being evidence for god.
The question is is the foundation sound, is the argument valid, is the conclusion true?

[\quote]

Theres a real train station at Kings cross therefore Harry Potter is real.

That is just as valid as the rather odd assertion you just made.

All of you are just muggles.

One difference might be that hundreds of millions of people believe the Bible presents truths and it has been presented that way for centuries, but not one person on the plant believes the HP story is true and it has only been presented as fiction.
Personal testimony is a form of evidence.
Your analogy is too incomplete to analyze.
Your claims of validity and oddity are...invalid and odd.

---

[quote='Chuck' pid='100678' dateline='1287739129']
Anymore than an accurate description of your country, your city, your street, your house, your personal library and what you had for dinner on Christmas eve in a story about Santa Clause coming down your chimney counts as evidence of the existence of Santa Clause.

Explain why that is not evidence, without assuming beforehand that Santa Claus does not exist.

You don't need to assume anything about Santa Clause to see that accurate descriptions of your country, your city, your street, your house, your personal library and what you had for dinner on Christmas eve have anything to do with santa clause.

Such unrelated items, true or not, has zero impact on the likelihood of the truth of the Santa Clause in exactly the same way that prefacing claims of Santa Clause with the evident truth of 2+2 = 4 would nothing to the claim.

Shielding claims wth a wall of unrelated propositions is a totally dishonest and intellectually bankrupt tactic that seems to be the best many Christians can come up with the defend their "faith".

I agree.
However, there are no claims here about Santa Claus or Christianity. There is only a claim about what constitutes evidence. If you need to vent your hatred for fairy talers then you should probably redirect it toward one of the other posters; maybe they care. I am responding to the opening post's explicit contention on what constitutes evidence.

[tackattack]

@Myster- If you're quoting large amounts of text please use the hide tags. If you're not sure how please refer to http://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html
Thanks!