The Best Evidence For God and Against God

[Mister Agenda]

Joker, to me it seems like you set up the parameters that:

1) if you disprove evolution to your satisfaction

or

2) atheists don't prove evolution to your satisfaction

then

GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it does not work that way. Maybe for the petulant and dull witted, not for me.

I appreciate your point, but I am having trouble accepting that common argument from atheists "It doesn't mean God did it".

The problem I see.

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But the atheist may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.

If the universe isn't natural, it could be a pimply-faced geek at a computer who pressed the 'run universe' button. Do you want to call that God?

[Mister Agenda]

I appreciate your point, but I am having trouble accepting that common argument from atheists "It doesn't mean God did it".

You might want to read up on 'false dichotomy' or 'fallacy of the excluded middle'; which involve assuming that there are only two answers to a question.

Or the fallacy of the argument from incredulity: you having trouble accepting something is irrelevant to whether it is true or not.

[The Joker]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

[Crossless2.0]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

Does Spitzer give you kickbacks for pimping his book in every damn thread?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

It's the same tired arguments. Fine tuning, cosmological argument, 'something from nothing' and other such nonsense, which have already been refuted as fallacious, in some cases centuries ago.

[Mister Agenda]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

Thanks for the recommendation, but if I have to read another apologetics book, I may self-injure. I've got a thread about the last one around here somewhere.

It would only take one actual proof to prove the existence of God. A proof that fails isn't actually a proof at all. Five hundred flawed proofs don't add up to one convincing one. If you would be so kind as to relate the best proof you found in that book, I would be interested in scrutinizing it. Hope springs eternal, I'm always ready to change my mind.

But if I had to put my finger on the most narrow factor that tipped me over to skeptical atheism, it would be exposure to both education on burden of proof and logical fallacies and being subjected to apologetics. I can't count how many proofs of God I've checked out, only to find each one was either fallacious or founded on premises that only someone who already believed would accept.

[houseofcantor]

The only proof for revealed religion is the prophet. As a prophet, I've concluded that for god to exist outside the self is both absurd and unnecessary. God agrees. 

[Tonus]

The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence. But there is lot lot easier way to do it.

"Self-delusion" isn't a reliable method, though.

[houseofcantor]

The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence. But there is lot lot easier way to do it.

"Self-delusion" isn't a reliable method, though.

Lies. It's pretty dang easy to delude yourself. 

[Asmodee]

The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence. But there is lot lot easier way to do it. Disapprove the theory of Naturalistic Evolution and this automatically Proves God's existence or Prove Evolution and you automatically disapprove God's existence.

The two options.

A)Prove Naturalistic Evolution to be true and you take out God's existence because this shows a natural explanation of how everything came into existence without the assistance of the supernatural.
B)Take out Naturalistic Evolution and the existence of God is automatically Proven.

That is absolutely not true and is known as a "false dichotomy".  If I prove to you the sky isn't yellow I don't get to claim victory in proving that it is purple.  You CAN NOT prove what "is" by proving what "is not".  That is not how it works.  That is how you would like it to work, but that is not how it works.

Besides that there are many people and religious organizations, including the Catholic church, who both believe in God's existence AND accept evolution.  They believe BOTH because, as I said, your claim is false.  It is entirely possible that an all-knowing, all-powerful deity, rather than creating things in their current form, could simply create a system and set it in motion the mechanisms by which the intended result would arise.

There is also the possibility that one may accept neither.  There may be someone out there who believes in neither God nor evolution because your claim is false.

Because it's either,

A):We came here by an accident without true meaning or purpose, but we are just some random living organism in space, Or
B):God created us with a meaning and purpose to life, not including our private wants.

But it also depends on ones honesty as well, not just the evidence, no amount of evidence is going to convince someone who is unwilling to accept it. So we must look at ii, in both ways.

A) Is there convincing evidence for Naturalistic Evolution?
or
B) Is there convincing evidence against Naturalistic Evolution?

When atheists say, the burden of Proof is on the theist to provide the evidence for Gods existence. There is a twist to the game you see, a theist may say the burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident, see the problem? So, we must check both sides.

Here your mistake is thinking that "atheist" and "the theory of evolution" have anything in common.  I am not a biologist, or paleontologist, or any kind of "gist" in any field qualified to give evidence one way or another for or against evolution.  I didn't create the theory.  I didn't contribute to it.  So no, the burden of proof is not on "me" to prove that evolution is true, that burden is on scientists whose job it is to study such things.

Another mistake you make is believing they have to prove it to YOU.  They do not.  They have to prove it to a majority of their peers, which they have done.  Evolution is probably the most disputed, most tested theory in the history of science.  People have been trying to kill it for over a hundred and fifty years.  The mere fact that it's still here would tell any intelligent person possessing a modicum of scientific understanding that this says volumes about its validity as a scientific theory.

So in short, the burden of proof is on ANYONE making a claim.  When I say that I accept the theory of evolution, I am not the one making the claim.  I am simply accepting the claim made by scientists because the scientific method is proven to work.  So it is SCIENTISTS who bear the burden of proof for evolution, but they don't have to prove it to YOU, but to other scientists in their field, their "peers", which they have done for a hundred and fifty years now.

When it comes to the burden of proof for the existence of a deity, things are a little more complicated.  For scientific theories we have a system of authority in place.  You might say that science has "standards".  Religion has no such universal system of authority.  Instead there are many authorities, each with different claims and standards, as I've already pointed out when I stated that the Catholic church both believes in God and accepts evolution.  And there are no standards of "proof".  So in this case it comes down to who is making what claim, because not all claims are the same.  Yours, for instance, has a higher level of specificity than simply "God is real".  It also comes down to who the claim is being made to.  In this case, YOU are making the claim to US, therefore YOU have the burden of proof to show that your claim is true.  But WE are not scientists who have researched evolution and determined it to be a reality.  Rather, we are simply accepting the scientific consensus on the matter.  Just because we accept it as truth does not me we, ourselves, are the claimants.  We are not.

I appreciate your point, but I am having trouble accepting that common argument from atheists "It doesn't mean God did it".

The problem I see.

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But the atheist may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.

Here you are mixing up "evolution" and "all the components of evolution as you see them".  If you proved evolution wrong tomorrow some components of it would still be true.  Microevolution would still be fact even if you proved macroevolution false.  Just ask any dog or horse breeder.

You see, the theory of evolution is a WHOLE LOT bigger and more complicated than just, "We came here by an accident through chance of evolution!"  I don't think you understand just how vast a scientific theory can be.  You could fill volumes with the theory of evolution and you would need multiple PhDs to understand all of those volumes.  At least SOME of that information MUST be correct, just by probability alone, not to mention the fact that parts of the theory of evolution are used to successfully develop medicines, new animal breeds, new plant breeds, etc.

And herein lies your problem.  You know essentially NOTHING about the theory of evolution.  All of us her together know only marginally more about it than you in the grand scheme of things.  What they teach in high school is just the very basic concept.  They don't teach the actual theory, they just impart a very basic understanding geared toward the intellect level of children.  You "know" it's wrong, yet you "know" that without even understanding what it is.

Your argument uses intellectually dishonest words like "accident" and "chance", too.  This allows you to reason, "Well, if it wasn't an 'accident' then there must be a 'purpose'".  I doubt any of those volumes of the theory of evolution use the word "accident" to describe any aspect of evolution.  Chance, yes, but not accident.

Do you really want to know why it is not either "A or B"?  Because I can actually explain it pretty easily.  I can actually destroy your entire argument by LOSING the argument.  I can take away every bargaining chip you have and leave you with nothing but a claim and no way to back it.

I agree with you.  Evolution is bullshit.  It's all wrong.  Nothing about the theory of evolution is right.  Burn it all.  You've just destroyed all my evidence and I am forced to accept that nothing about evolution is true.  I have no evidence that I am right.  Now, give me YOUR evidence that YOU are right.  DON'T ask me to give you another explanation that you can argue "against".  I want you to argue FOR your explanation.  Evolution is off the table, so don't bring up that nasty lie.  I can't believe I wasted so much of my life believing that lie.  I won't be caught like that again!  From now on I believe only what can be proved!  So, prove you're right.