Evidence for the existence of God

[purplepurpose]

I bet, even if God himself visits this planet and offers to "follow his will", there will be a lot of people who will wish to remain independent.

I'm sure you're correct. I'll be happy to talk to him like civilized beings, but I'm not bowing down to anyone. The idea that giving evidence of his existence would take away your choice to worship him is simply wrong.

Theoretically, it would provoke a lot of people, because, if God doesn't sends to "hell" anyone, you can ignore Him like He is some kind of garbage can, which would "remove" his Gods status. It would cause a lot of head ache to independent people, A lot of fear, which would ruin A lot of life's. I'm really happy that there is no prof for God.

[Faith No More]

Every scientific finding empirically confirms that the physical universe is intelligible and that human reason  effectively secures knowledge. Make of that what you will.

That's a nice sentiment except for the fact that it's not remotely true.

@OP You know what people do when they can't demonstrate their claims? They quibble over definitions.

[vorlon13]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

BTW, do you have something for us to look at like:



A voter ID card for Jesus issued by the roman procurator office of Jerusalem

A DNA analysis confirming the blood on the Shroud of Turin is from a viable haploid human being

God acknowledging his existence in  glowing red letters on the upcoming full moon that say  I AM THAT I AM

[robvalue]

I'm sure you're correct. I'll be happy to talk to him like civilized beings, but I'm not bowing down to anyone. The idea that giving evidence of his existence would take away your choice to worship him is simply wrong.

Theoretically, it would provoke a lot of people, because, if God doesn't sends to "hell" anyone, you can ignore Him like a garbage can, which would "remove" his Gods status. It would cause a lot of head ache to independent people.

Sure, well if "God" did turn up, I wouldn't expect for a second it would be one of the ludicrous characters in popular books, so it would probably remove forever the worry about hell. I'm sure it would be mightily amused, or perhaps insulted, by these silly stories. Nor would I expect that it would want or require worship. That probably would be it for a lot of people, without the carrot/stick they'd just walk off. It's a shame more people don't realize that they can simply walk off right now, because the carrot/stick are imaginary.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[Simon Moon]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

What can be considered evidence depends on what the claim or hypothesis is.

The claim that you had lunch with a good friend of yours, requires almost no evidence. I would tend to believe that claim based on nothing more than your word. The claim that you had lunch with your friend on Mars, require drastically more evidence, that is demonstrable and falsifiable.

So first, a very coherent definition of the god, that is very specifically defined, would have to be provided, to discern what kind of evidence is needed.

I have never said there is no evidence for a god. Just drastically insufficient evidence for me to warrant belief.

[Yadayadayada]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

BTW, do you have something for us to look at like:



A voter ID card for Jesus issued by the roman procurator office of Jerusalem

A DNA analysis confirming the blood on the Shroud of Turin is from a viable haploid human being

God acknowledging his existence in  glowing red letters on the upcoming full moon that say  I AM THAT I AM

Well, yes, this is what I am getting at.

You won't get CCTV footage or DNA samples as evidence of God. So, what would constitute enough "proof" or "evidence" for atheists to believe in God, or at least to consider God as the most credible explanation for the existence of the universe and life on earth?

Oh, and it can't simply be your own view of God. You definition needs to be unambiguous and universal, or very nearly so.

Well, Boru, since you ask, my own view of God is the Biblical God. That is as universal as it comes, so should satisfy you on that count. But for the purpose of this topic, I am referring to God as the Creator of the universe, the First Cause. Whether he is a personal God who answers prayers etc. is not relevant. My question is, specifically, what would it take for an atheist to believe in a Creator?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Every scientific finding empirically confirms that the physical universe is intelligible and that human reason  effectively secures knowledge. Make of that what you will.

That's a nice sentiment except for the fact that it's not remotely true.

I am sincerely interested in why you think that. Could you please elaborate?

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

Yadayadayada,

God damn it, when will you pagan god freaks ever learn?!  Which god of the primitive Bronze and Iron Age are you talking about???

Don't be like the ever so inept Neo-Scholasitc, Catholic Lady, Drich, Phillip2, et al, okay?  By you using the term "god," you act as though 
there is only one god which is laughable!  For the sake of your further embarrassment, I have included a list of many pagan 
gods throughout history,  so please pick from the list below in which primitive god you're referring too! 


Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, 
Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, 
Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, 
Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, 
Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, 
Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Jesus, Juno, Jupiter, 
Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, 
Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, 
Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, 
Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, 
Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, 
Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, 
Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama. 



m

[LadyForCamus]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=define+evidence

LMAO!  That made my night, Hammy.  Thank you!