Evidence for Believing

[Nay_Sayer]

I do it's just I happened upon the right god, You got sidetracked.

Feel free to hop aboard the winning team.

---

God told me directly that you are to send me $1000 a week via a US money order. Pm me so we can hash out the details.

I know this is false because as a messenger and close friend to FSM, I can tell you It's in debt for about the value of 3 galaxies.

Has a real weakness for gambling and galactic poker.

[EgoDeath]

I've been asked a zillion times in this forum to give evidence for why I believe in God and each time the questioner comes back and tells me that's not real evidence.   Here's the situation.  We have a being who is supernatural.  He/She/It can exist without the need to obey any natural laws and therefore, cannot be understood or explained by natural or scientific means.

1. How do you know this?

I always reply that I believe because God has directly impressed me with the awareness of his existence.  I list supporting factors as the witness of other believers, evidence of ghosts and other supernatural phenomena, etc.  A very conservative estimate of the number of people in the world today who believe in God, in this scientific age, is five billion.  These people are from every profession and walk of life.

If God directly illuminates me through supernatural means which cannot be tested by any natural means, how can I give you any other solid evidence other than to relate my experience?  You might say I'm suffering from a delusion, but I have no other history of delusions and billions of others who have no history of delusions also believe in God.  Billions of these people are moderately or well-educated and realize that the earth revolves around the sun, as you do.

Why don't you accept this as evidence for God?

2. What makes you think that revelatory experiences or "direct communication" with voices or entities is some sort of credible source of evidence?

3. Do you think that you could use this type of evidence in a court of law? In what other arena of our world do we consider personal revelation to be satisfactory evidence for convincing others of otherwise unobserved phenomena?

[Deesse23]

  We have a being who is supernatural. 

This is a claim, not evidence.

 
He/She/It can exist without the need to obey any natural laws and therefore, cannot be understood or explained by natural or scientific means. 

These are several claims, but no evidene
  

 
I always reply that I believe because God has directly impressed me with the awareness of his existence. 

He hasnt impressed me with his existence, for some reason. Please impress me with his existence. Why should i believe you that he impressed you with his existence? Because you are such a nice guy?

 
I list supporting factors as the witness of other believers, evidence of ghosts and other supernatural phenomena, etc. 

Another bunch of other people making other claims, but no evidence. For the record: most if not all of those claims have been debunked.

 
A very conservative estimate of the number of people in the world today who believe in God, in this scientific age, is five billion. 

Five billion people making how many different claims about how many different flavours of "god"? Still no evidence. We dont determine what is true by making polls. Else the job of scientist/researcher wouldnt be a thing.

 
These people are from every profession and walk of life.

So what?

 
If God directly illuminates me through supernatural means which cannot be tested by any natural means, how can I give you any other solid evidence other than to relate my experience?  

Not my problem. I have high standards for accepting beliefs, most probably way higher than you, because i want to believe in as few wrong things as possible and as many true things as possible. The way to achieve this is to have evidence, evidence that can be shared with others (because i am living in a shared reality with others, and therefore am not entitled to proclaim what is real/truth or not myself).
Yes i may not believe in many thing that are true, but for which there is not (enough) evidence yet. But i dont want to believe in many things being false. Like having guilty people roam the streets rather than having innocent people in prison.

You think you have been illuminated, you think you cant give me solid evidence, but you think i should accept your belief? How about ill wait until i am illuminted myself? I accept you had an experience, i am sceptical it was caused by a god.
Question: Before you were illuminated, did you believe other peoples´ claims about being illuminated? Did you believe in their god(s)? Right....you didnt, thats why you had to be illuminated yourself in the first place, right? So why trying nto enfore a double standard on me? Why is it so important for you that i accept your belief

 
You might say I'm suffering from a delusion,

I am saying i am not convinced due to a lack of good reasons for me to believe. You being delusional is just one of many possible reasons why your arguments arent convincing to me. I.am.sceptic.

 
Billions of these people are moderately or well-educated and realize that the earth revolves around the sun, as you do.

Actually, you would be shocked at how many peopel are not well educated. That is because, wait for it, you arent well educated about the standard of eduation on this planet. You seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that most of the billions of people on this planet are 
#1 starving
#2 uneducated

You maybe are better fed, but likely just as uneducated as all the other billions f people who arent. Do you get the irony of this?
That, by the way, is why i think the best tool against religion is education. Religion will (largely) go away if people were better educated.

 
Why don't you accept this as evidence for God?

Because what you have presented is not evidence*
What you have presented is claims, other people making (other) claims, and fallacies like appeal to numbers. Again, it shows your lack in education (see above).

*"personal evidence" isnt evidence. Just like oranges arent apples, because i call them "personal apples". You are entitled to believe in a god based on "personal evidence". You are not entitled to proclaim your god to be true based on your fallacious reasoning. You are of course entitled to wonder why i have such rigorous standards for beliefs, way more rigorous than you.

[Fake Messiah]

I list supporting factors as the witness of other believers, evidence of ghosts and other supernatural phenomena, etc.

And also horoscopes, palm reading, tarot cards, big-foots... why seclude yourself on superstitions that you believe in? Billions of people believe in horoscopes, even educated people and yet it's all worthless.

A very conservative estimate of the number of people in the world today who believe in God, in this scientific age, is five billion.

Nones are on the rise.

I'm not talking about just Jesus, Allah, Brahman, etc. I'm talking about God.

Oh, are we lumping all religions together? If they're so similar then why did theists spent all this time killing each-other for whose god is the right one?

So you think billions of educated, non-delusional people are stupid, mistaken or delusional.

The thing is it's extremely easy to be delusional. That's why people get scared at horror movies - imagine, people are afraid of something that they know doesn't exist because when they start watching some horror movie and their brain is fooling them to feel that the monster is around them.
That's why movie horror business flourishes along with horoscope, palm reading, tarot and also religions.

You have been on this forum for few years now and yet you fail to notice that we discuss when some educated person believes in some nonsense. Like recently there was that computer scientist who started believing in creationism and yet what is his evidence? There is none.

So to me, and I think that I say in the name of the other atheists, it doesn't matter who specifically believes in what, but what evidence they have for believing in it.

I really do wish you read "Flim Flam" by James Randi where he gives numerous examples of how easy it is to fool people(he doesn't mention horror movies). Like when he went on a radio and said that he saw a UFO and then immediately people started calling in saying they saw the same thing and then he revealed that he didn't see anything.

But if you really want to believe there is something supernatural behind horoscopes, demons, faeries, etc. there is a thing called Interdimensional hypothesis which is some sort of pseudoscience that claims how some shit (I really don't know how else to call it) manifests itself through the history as demons, aliens, horoscope, Marian apparitions... - I mean is that something you see yourself believing in?

[zebo-the-fat]

1)  If a god created the universe (that is everything that exists) then where was he before he created it? (Heaven is not an answer because that would be part of “everything that exists”)
2)  Historians have catalogued over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities, so how do you know you picked the correct one?
3)  If a god wants to provide evidence that he is real (and why wouldn't he?) he should make his word appear in every home on the planet, at the same time, in whatever language the people spoke, printed on an unknown and indestructible material that was impossible to analyse... then I might start to think that this might be something worth looking at, but an old book on paper … no, he needs to do better than that!
4)  If I see some convincing, testable evidence of a god I would convert in a second... that's what convincing means, but I have not been convinced in 64 years!
5)  I don't believe in any gods, not zeus, thor, odin, ra, quetzalcoatl, yahweh, or jehovah for the same reason I don't believe in pixies, fairies or goblins
6)  If god does exist, he's made himself unverifiable by every way in which he allows us to perceive his universe, thus rendering himself irrelevant to any reasoning mind

[Belacqua]

Because what you have presented is not evidence*
What you have presented is claims, other people making (other) claims, and fallacies like appeal to numbers. Again, it shows your lack in education (see above).

*"personal evidence" isnt evidence. Just like oranges arent apples, because i call them "personal apples". You are entitled to believe in a god based on "personal evidence". You are not entitled to proclaim your god to be true based on your fallacious reasoning. You are of course entitled to wonder why i have such rigorous standards for beliefs, way more rigorous than you.

I think personal evidence is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. If we define evidence as "anything which gives added credence to a proposition." If someone has a religious experience, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of the existence of God is more likely to be true than he did before. If he's honest he has to accept that he may be deluded -- but we all have to accept that about most things.

Also I think that an appeal to numbers constitutes evidence --- though not proof. 

Suppose you went to a small town you'd never visited before, and you asked 100 people what the best restaurant in town is. If 99 people give the same answer, that is solid evidence (not proof) that it really is the best restaurant in town. 

Likewise, if a billion people say they have personal experience of God, then that is evidence (not proof). 

Now you may reject the testimony of a billion people about God, while accepting the testimony of 99 people about the restaurant, because they are testimony concerning different categories -- a metaphysical truth versus an aesthetic one. But it shows that what you're rejecting isn't the possibility of numbers serving as evidence. You're rejecting the ability of any proof -- numerical or otherwise -- in certain categories.

---

1)  If a god created the universe (that is everything that exists) then where was he before he created it? (Heaven is not an answer because that would be part of “everything that exists”)

Creationists ask "if people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys." And scientists slap their foreheads in disbelief. 

Your question here is the theological equivalent. It only shows that you don't know any theology at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

An ad pop is neither proof nor evidence.  Its a textbook logical fallacy, and that's all.  

The only truth that can be derived from numbers, is a truth about how many people believe x, not the truth of its contents - which is the item in question.

[Foxaèr]

I've been asked a zillion times in this forum to give evidence for why I believe in God and each time the questioner comes back and tells me that's not real evidence.   Here's the situation.  We have a being who is supernatural.  He/She/It can exist without the need to obey any natural laws and therefore, cannot be understood or explained by natural or scientific means.

Here's the situation: You're making claims of a being without providing evidence of stated being's existence. Then you describe characteristics of this being even though there is no evidence of stated being's existence.

I always reply that I believe because God has directly impressed me with the awareness of his existence.  I list supporting factors as the witness of other believers, evidence of ghosts and other supernatural phenomena, etc.  A very conservative estimate of the number of people in the world today who believe in God, in this scientific age, is five billion.  These people are from every profession and walk of life.

I always reply that I know god has not interacted with you in any way. Rather, your mind's concept of god has delusionally influenced your awareness of reality. Argumentum ad populum, bitch.

If God directly illuminates me through supernatural means which cannot be tested by any natural means, how can I give you any other solid evidence other than to relate my experience?  You might say I'm suffering from a delusion, but I have no other history of delusions and billions of others who have no history of delusions also believe in God.  Billions of these people are moderately or well-educated and realize that the earth revolves around the sun, as you do.

Precisely, you are suffering from a delusion. All religious people are.

Why don't you accept this as evidence for God?

What evidence?

[zebo-the-fat]

Because what you have presented is not evidence*
What you have presented is claims, other people making (other) claims, and fallacies like appeal to numbers. Again, it shows your lack in education (see above).

*"personal evidence" isnt evidence. Just like oranges arent apples, because i call them "personal apples". You are entitled to believe in a god based on "personal evidence". You are not entitled to proclaim your god to be true based on your fallacious reasoning. You are of course entitled to wonder why i have such rigorous standards for beliefs, way more rigorous than you.

I think personal evidence is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. If we define evidence as "anything which gives added credence to a proposition." If someone has a religious experience, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of the existence of God is more likely to be true than he did before. If he's honest he has to accept that he may be deluded -- but we all have to accept that about most things.

Also I think that an appeal to numbers constitutes evidence --- though not proof. 

Suppose you went to a small town you'd never visited before, and you asked 100 people what the best restaurant in town is. If 99 people give the same answer, that is solid evidence (not proof) that it really is the best restaurant in town. 

Likewise, if a billion people say they have personal experience of God, then that is evidence (not proof). 

Now you may reject the testimony of a billion people about God, while accepting the testimony of 99 people about the restaurant, because they are testimony concerning different categories -- a metaphysical truth versus an aesthetic one. But it shows that what you're rejecting isn't the possibility of numbers serving as evidence. You're rejecting the ability of any proof -- numerical or otherwise -- in certain categories.

---

1)  If a god created the universe (that is everything that exists) then where was he before he created it? (Heaven is not an answer because that would be part of “everything that exists”)

Creationists ask "if people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys." And scientists slap their foreheads in disbelief. 

Your question here is the theological equivalent. It only shows that you don't know any theology at all.

No, it's a simple question, where was he/she/it?

[Anomalocaris]

Because what you have presented is not evidence*
What you have presented is claims, other people making (other) claims, and fallacies like appeal to numbers. Again, it shows your lack in education (see above).

*"personal evidence" isnt evidence. Just like oranges arent apples, because i call them "personal apples". You are entitled to believe in a god based on "personal evidence". You are not entitled to proclaim your god to be true based on your fallacious reasoning. You are of course entitled to wonder why i have such rigorous standards for beliefs, way more rigorous than you.

I think personal evidence is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. If we define evidence as "anything which gives added credence to a proposition." If someone has a religious experience, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of the existence of God is more likely to be true than he did before. If he's honest he has to accept that he may be deluded -- but we all have to accept that about most things.

Also I think that an appeal to numbers constitutes evidence --- though not proof. 

Suppose you went to a small town you'd never visited before, and you asked 100 people what the best restaurant in town is. If 99 people give the same answer, that is solid evidence (not proof) that it really is the best restaurant in town. 

Likewise, if a billion people say they have personal experience of God, then that is evidence (not proof). 

Now you may reject the testimony of a billion people about God, while accepting the testimony of 99 people about the restaurant, because they are testimony concerning different categories -- a metaphysical truth versus an aesthetic one. But it shows that what you're rejecting isn't the possibility of numbers serving as evidence. You're rejecting the ability of any proof -- numerical or otherwise -- in certain categories.

---

1)  If a god created the universe (that is everything that exists) then where was he before he created it? (Heaven is not an answer because that would be part of “everything that exists”)

Creationists ask "if people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys." And scientists slap their foreheads in disbelief. 

Your question here is the theological equivalent. It only shows that you don't know any theology at all.

 

A lie is a lie, quibbling about “well obviously you don;t know what a lie is” says you don’t know the first thing about what truth is.  

So please.    No one who wasn’t born yesterday and who has any sincere interest in reality can give a rat’s ass about theology when the question is about what constitutes reality.