What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Snowracks, that guy who likes to cite something irrelevant:

Until the highly rational method of falsifiability is falsified, I wouldn't bother trying to convince me that it's not a highly rational method

[Silver]

Evidence for god is anything other than what theists use as pretend evidence for believing in him.

[Simon Moon]

I don't believe evidence for God is possible due to his unfalsifiablity.

‘Unfalsifiability’ was not a problem for Antony Flew in his book “There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew. God’s reveals Himself in: The Book of Nature, and The Book of written Revelation. The information is out there, you just need to let it in.

Sorry, but Flew did not believe in any god described in religious texts, like the Bible. 

The most he was convinced of, is a deist god. Nothing more.

[Pyrrho]

‘Unfalsifiability’ was not a problem for Antony Flew in his book “There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew. God’s reveals Himself in: The Book of Nature, and The Book of written Revelation. The information is out there, you just need to let it in.

Sorry, but Flew did not believe in any god described in religious texts, like the Bible. 

The most he was convinced of, is a deist god. Nothing more.

There is a good deal of controversy over Flew's mental state when the conversion took place.  See, for example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightath...tony-flew/

I think this article gets to a more important point to consider:

And the reasoning by which he arrived at his certainty that God does not exist was never cancelled or reversed by the sloppy arguments of his senility.

And:

Dr Richard Carrier tried to ascertain from Professor Flew himself whether he had really “found God”. Carrier’s detailed account (no longer to be found on the internet – we wonder why) of how Flew claimed he was, but then again was not, converted to belief in a creator-God when certain scientific facts were brought to his attention, makes the whole sorry story plain. Carrier records that the philosopher admitted to finding the subject “too hard” to deal with; that he failed to remember anything about There is a God; that he repeatedly contradicted himself.

http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/th...lzheimers/

The important point is not whether he was senile or not.  The important point is, his arguments for god are simply inadequate.  That is the takeaway for this, regardless of whether he was being manipulated or not.


We all know that there are theists in the world.  That fact makes no difference for whether anyone ought to believe in a god or not.  It is reasoning and evidence that matter, not who believes what.

Anyone who reasons thusly:

This person [insert any name you want] believes in god.
Therefore, everyone should believe in god.

is a moron who reasons fallaciously.

[Exian]

I know this thread was started by an atheist, but...

I find it telling that this question crops up quite often, and the question "What would you consider to be evidence for a horse?" does not.

[Cyberman]

My thoughts exactly. Evidence is only a problem for someone who has none.

[jenny1972]

Sorry, but Flew did not believe in any god described in religious texts, like the Bible. 

The most he was convinced of, is a deist god. Nothing more.

There is a good deal of controversy over Flew's mental state when the conversion took place.  See, for example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightath...tony-flew/

I think this article gets to a more important point to consider:

And the reasoning by which he arrived at his certainty that God does not exist was never cancelled or reversed by the sloppy arguments of his senility.

And:

Dr Richard Carrier tried to ascertain from Professor Flew himself whether he had really “found God”. Carrier’s detailed account (no longer to be found on the internet – we wonder why) of how Flew claimed he was, but then again was not, converted to belief in a creator-God when certain scientific facts were brought to his attention, makes the whole sorry story plain. Carrier records that the philosopher admitted to finding the subject “too hard” to deal with; that he failed to remember anything about There is a God; that he repeatedly contradicted himself.

http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/th...lzheimers/

The important point is not whether he was senile or not.  The important point is, his arguments for god are simply inadequate.  That is the takeaway for this, regardless of whether he was being manipulated or not.


We all know that there are theists in the world.  That fact makes no difference for whether anyone ought to believe in a god or not.  It is reasoning and evidence that matter, not who believes what.

Anyone who reasons thusly:

This person [insert any name you want] believes in god.
Therefore, everyone should believe in god.

is a moron who reasons fallaciously.

he was in his right mind 10 years ago  , since 2005 he has stated a preference for Aristotelian Deism

[Angrboda]

he was in his right mind 10 years ago  , since 2005 he has stated a preference for Aristotelian Deism

And?

[snowtracks]

My thoughts exactly. Evidence is only a problem for someone who has none.

Relax. Evidence is not proof. And, no one care if the atheist doesn't believe in God; but there is evidence. lots of evidence. Oh, was it mentioned that humongous amounts of evidence is not proof of God?

Flew in his book cited three main arguments for his change of mind: one is, cell complexity especially DNA - “intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” Page 75. He also said “follow the evidence wherever it leads”. Intelligence being involved in DNA would be a more plausible hypothesis then an undirected, purposeless, brute chemistry hypothesis. Let each individual decide for themselves, using their God-given intellect.

[Lemonvariable72]

My thoughts exactly. Evidence is only a problem for someone who has none.

Relax. Evidence is not proof. And, no one care if the atheist doesn't believe in God; but there is evidence. lots of evidence. Oh, was it mentioned that humongous amounts of evidence is not proof of God?

Flew in his book cited three main arguments for his change of mind: one is, cell complexity especially DNA - “intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” Page 75. He also said “follow the evidence wherever it leads”. Intelligence being involved in DNA would be a more plausible hypothesis then an undirected, purposeless, brute chemistry hypothesis. Let each individual decide for themselves, using their God-given intellect.

Therefore Jesus.