Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Amarok]

Here's a start...

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework.

P1 and P2: Just  because we have a *story* that some strange things occurred doesn't mean we have evidence of it. We also have to weigh the likelihood of the story being accurate. In this case, it is quite low.teh story was written well after the purported events, gathered by people motivated to support their positions, and approved of by a Roman emperor. That doesn't help the case.

P3-P5: People being delusional and misinterpreting coincidences isn't evidence. Predicting that people will do so isn't evidence either.

P6-P10: all argue from a position of ignorance and actually don't provide evidence for a deity either way. They are just-so stories that don't affect the probabilities.

P11: Simply wrong

P12-P13: both based on fallacies. Since there is equal counter-evidence, the net effect is zero, or even against the position you hold.

The point is that we *know* that people are superstitious and prone to interpret coincidences and low probability events in a supernatural light. The fact that people generally interpret such in light of their local superstition gives evidence *against* the existence of deities that far outweighs the claims made *for* their existence: the net effect is that deities are *less* likely.

Again, the net effect of ALL of your claims is to make something incredibly unlikely still incredibly unlikely.

Not to mention for all the stuff he demands we give counter evidence i simply say we don't as it's not evidence to begin with it's assertions and fallacies and neither the accumulation of weak or non evidence or net evidence helps Steves case . Now watch Steve act like an arrogant ass .

[Belacqua]

My stance is that any apologist who ignores the attributes of consciousness and willfulness is equivocating with his god-concept.

But as always, if you have something to say, by all means say it.

If consciousness and willfulness are baked into your concept of what God is, I won't argue with you. No philosopher I know of -- including the Christian ones -- conceive of God as having these things in the way that people do.

[Aoi Magi]

I believe I exist.

My evidence for my own existence is as follows.
I can see myself. I can feel myself.
My body has mass. I can weigh it.
I can displace water in a tub.
I reflect light. Other people can see me, can feel me.
There is a long list that I won't get into.

I believe my phone exists.
I can offer similar evidence for why I believe it exists.

I don't provide arguments to help prove that my phone exists. I provide my phone to prove it exists.

Does anyone have any tangible proof that a god exists ?

At the most basic level, our sun is a source of heat & light that appears each day in our lives. It is circular in appearance and at times can be blocked by the moon.

This is how people might have described the attributes of the sun many thousands of years ago.
They had no idea what it was made of or what happened within it on an atomic level or how much gravity it asserted on our planet.

They only knew a couple basic attributes, but those attributes allowed us to detect it's existence, even if we only knew .001% about it.

When it comes to a god, we know nothing.

A god could present itself in a godly human looking form for all to see. It could give off light that we could see. I could manafest in reality so that we would know it existed.

Well it could, if it really existed.
I don't believe it does.

In one of my hands I have an extremely small universe that contains a god.
In the other hand I have an extremely small universe that doesn't contain a god.

Can you determine which is which ?

To conclude.
Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

Assume you are a game developer, you can easily interact with the world you create, but you cannot physically enter it. You can create an avatar/character representing yourself, but that is also coded the same as all other characters or existences in that world, bound by its rules. From the perspective of the characters in that world at most, you can appear as a super-intelligent being, but proving yourself as the creator is near impossible if they are unwilling to believe.

As for your existence, that's debatable too, everything you can do to verify your existence are mere signals being interpreted by your brain, and the brain is quite good at misinterpreting things. But that aside, what proof do you have of my existence or of anyone else here? All you have representing me is a bunch of words, strung together not always in a very coherent fashion, a user-image obviously of no real human, and a name that too is not exactly real.










PS: I am bored
PPS: am I a good theist?

[polymath257]

Evidence is information that changes the likelihood the claim is true. The problem is that weak evidence will not change that probability by much and is equivalent to no evidence at all in many cases.

In your list, the evidence is so weak that it doesn't change the probability of there being a deity from by a factor of more than one part in 100. So, it goes from something like .000001% to .0000011%.

I think that you are equivocating on the word probability here.

Why would you think that?

[SteveII]

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework.

We can construct the same framework and examples using a Superman or Spiderman comic book.

Next

That's a very foolish statement and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't/incapable of grasping the actual moving parts of a philosophical discussion. But thanks for the reply--I like to know where the atheists all fit on the discussion-fitness scale.

[Anomalocaris]

Still, I think it's misguided to demand direct sense experience of a thing which educated believers have said from the beginning is not something you can sense.

Really?  That’s all you’ve got?  If I claim my assertion does not need evidence to believe means you should believe it without evidence?

You mean it is not misguided for the “educated” believer to have said from the beginning there could be asserted to exist such a thing that could be based on verifiable senses?

You mean it is not misguided for the “educated” believer, having so believed in the beginning, when presumably they were superstitious and lacking benefit from validation of methods of truth finding, to continue hold such a wishthinking belief and even pushed onto u willing audience in the age of Science?

[SteveII]

Here's a start...

...

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework.

You are begging so many questions that I can only conclude you are arguing in bad faith.

Please enlighten me where there is a question begging premise--especially in light of the inductive structure of the argument. 

However, I will offer a couple general remarks.  First, any "truths" you claim must be more probable than alternative explanations for the same observations.  This is why mere interpretations are never evidence.  Second, any "truths" you claim must also not be in conflict with other truths with substantial evidence supporting them.  Your "truths" fail badly on both counts.

If you are not familiar with the alternative explanations and evidence, I suggest you do a bit more research.  If you are unwilling to do so, then you are just rationalizing what you prefer to believe.

Wait! You have an 'alternative explanation' to the NT that has evidence? That would be a first. See, most alternate explanations are ad hoc theories that only address one aspect. No theory addresses all of them. So, which one do you like?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' to billions of people's experience? Is it a billion explanations or just one covers everyone?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' why anything exists? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for where the universe came from? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for consciousness? Do tell.

We can just start with that.

[Amarok]

I think that you are equivocating on the word probability here.

Why would you think that?

Because he does not understand the word

[SteveII]

And how do you separate fact from fiction? Quotes from the Bible are mere CLAIMS until you first prove that these events really happened. You can make similar or identical claims from the Koran, the Book of Mormon or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

[Amarok]

And Steve does not fail to deliver the arrogance