What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[IATIA]

If you think about, there wouldn't be anything without God's existence; no matter, energy, information, or mind

Says who? I have been around for 62 some odd years and to date, not one single person has presented anything that could even be remotely considered evidence, let alone proof, for the possibility that there might be a god. Everything is hearsay, I read it in a book, anecdotes and opinion.

So again, Who says? What is your evidence. I am not even asking for proof because I know that even evidence of a non-existent being is impossible to come by.

Science, however, has demonstrated, through empirical evidence, how the universe possibly began and how it works.

[Cyberman]

To be fully accurate, snowflake's conclusion is one that can only be reached if you don't think about it.

[IATIA]

To be fully accurate, snowflake's conclusion is one that can only be reached if you don't think about it.

I am sure the big words (hearsay, anecdotes, science, empirical and evidence) will throw him off.

[snowtracks]

If you think about, there wouldn't be anything without God's existence; no matter, energy, information, or mind

Says who?  I have been around for 62 some odd years and to date, not one single person has presented anything that could even be remotely considered evidence, let alone proof, for the possibility that there might be a god.  Everything is hearsay, I read it in a book, anecdotes and opinion.

So again, Who says? What is your evidence.  I am not even asking for proof because I know that even evidence of a non-existent being is impossible to come by.

Science, however, has demonstrated, through empirical evidence, how the universe possibly began and how it works.

It’s a matter of comparing the naturalistic model to the creation model and choosing the one that best fits the observable data from all the sciences. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a policy statement that implicitly and strictly adheres to a materialistic understanding of the nature of science. So scientists accepted a self-imposed limitation to the hypothesis they are willing to accept. Hence, all their conclusion must adher to the principle of methodological materialism including origin of the universe, and life or phenomena such as human consciousness. To publish or secure grants that have the AAAS policy or similar (Nature, Nova, Smithsonian, public and most private universities, etc), the researchers most exclude by policy any creation model evidence. Nothing wrong with AAAS like institutions setting rules for their members (policy statement, not a conspiracy); however, the problem is that they have excluded conclusion before the research even begins (as stated by Richard Lewontin American evolutionary biologist ‘…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door‘)*
; and that most readers don’t know of this a priori restrictive policy. Some researcher even are convinced of the creation model, but will of course interpret the finding naturalistically. Therefore, most of the ‘science’ this board’s posters are so enameled with is really pre-loaded ’science’. In the case of evolution, big gapping holes in the theory is explained by an appeal to future discoveries, but real science is based on what is known not what is not known.
　
* https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

[robvalue]

If God was required for there to be stuff, and there is stuff, then there must have been God.

Tautology.

[IATIA]

[quote='IATIA' pid='1130335' dateline='1449102327']It’s a matter of comparing the naturalistic model to the creation model and choosing the one that best fits the observable data from all the sciences.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests or insinuates this was all created by some god unless one is to start with the assumption that god must have created all this and then contort all available information to fit the assumption. If one relies on facts and evidence, it is quite obvious that there is no god.

[snowtracks]

If God was required for there to be stuff, and there is stuff, then there must have been God.

Tautology.

The organization of the material universe is what matters. Without design, the Big Bang material wouldn't have coalesced; it would still be going unorganized (like little bb's continuing to separate further and further). The universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. If the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. What determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface. In the book 'The Grand Design' by Hawking, Modinow, of which I have in eBook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". Goes on to say that the Cosmological Constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion, referred to as dark energy) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison, the est. atoms in the observable universe is 10^80. (). Continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the Cosmological Constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".

[IATIA]

There are probably a gazillion+ universes and not all went well. We just happen to be in one that did.

[snowtracks]

There are probably a gazillion+ universes and not all went well.  We just happen to be in one that did.

There is a sample size of one, beyond that is merely a metaphysical speculation but nice try though.

[Newton66]

There has never or will ever be evidence for God.

Only the search for God.

Stilll we play this game...

---

I'm 40 years old and I've been trying to dissuade people about God for 20 years. And no one has ever listened to a word I've said.

...