Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Oh come on! With a topic title like yours I thought there might be a decent argument, instead you offer the lamest reasons people give for god. Please, do you think we have not heard this theistic drivel.

What??? Whoops! Missed the point! hock:

My statement has nothing to do with the existence of God. It's about the illogicality of requiring evidence for faith. If it's drivel, give a good reason why it isn't so.

Faith is the cop out people have for reason. Faith is when you don't consider your beliefs logically and rationally. If God requires you to be illogical and unreasonable in your worldview then that's not god worth worshiping.

OT, but faith isn't when you consider your beliefs illogically at all. You're talking about blind faith.

Also, you analogy of doubt and faith fail. People assert that they believe in god because they "know". A lot of theists will assert that they do not doubt there is a god.

You misunderstand those theists. They are assured in their faith. That doesn't mean that their faith isn't needed. Otherwise they wouldn't believe in a God. It's simple logic that's pretty solid IMHO.

To say god does not require evidence is to say that your god is exempt from the laws of reason. You're making a special exemption where none is deserved. It's a weak attempt at stopping people from looking at the god question.

That's a completely non sensical statement given my reasoning above, which you haven't challenged successfully; and an illogical conclusion I think. In my reasoning, anyone considering the idea has to examine the question of existence.

You're right that god deserves questioning, but not in the way that you think. At the end of those questions there needs to be evidence, and there simply is none.

This is a ridiculous statement, as I've postulated above. Reason against it.

[Tiberius]

faith -noun
belief that is not based on proof:belief that is not based on proof

evidence -noun
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

And you say they aren't in conflict?

I believe I exist. I believe God exists. One I can have proof of, the other I can't. Where's the conflict?

You believe you exist, and you have proof (evidence) of this. That is an evidence and reasoned statement. Well done.

You believe God exists, but you cannot prove the existence of God (as you admit) so you are not using evidence. A belief based on no evidence is faith.

There is the conflict. You cannot claim that you have faith in God and can prove he exists. To have faith in something means there is no way of proving it without evidence. If you claim faith in God, I have no problems with you; you are entitled to your own beliefs. If you claim you have proof of God, I want to see the evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

EvidenceVsFaith

An oximoran in a name

If you have evidence of something, you wouldn't need to also have faith in it. Faith can only exist in something that isn't proven.

Likewise doubt and faith are co-dependant. If you had no doubt; if you were sure of something, then again, faith becomes obsolete.

Doubt needs questioning, if you don't question you don't doubt. You're sure.

To require evidence of God is therefore ridiculous. Belief in God requires faith, doubt and questioning.

If there actually WAS evidence of God then the evidence for him would be worth believing (obviously only if the evidence was strong enough and really WAS evidence).

Believing in God on faith - because you can't believe in him BASED on evidence - because there isn't any - isn't a good reason to believe!

Its like saying "Oh crap. There's no GOOD reason to believe in X - oh well a crappy ridiculous reason to believe that is almost certainly wrong is better than NOT believing in X".

Sounds totally idiotic to me. You might as well believe in everything ridiculous that you can possibly conjure up in your head if you believe in God. There's no real logical differences. No evidence of IPU, no evidence of FSM, no evidence of Zeus - and no evidence of God. Same - crucial - difference there.

If it's drivel, give a good reason why it isn't so.

That's backwards. If its drivel then its drivel until someone gives a good reason that its NOT drivel. You can't prove a negative - the burden of proof is on the 'drivel believer' - or someone who suggests drivel - to show that its not drivel. Its not on anyone to show that the drivel ISN'T drivel. If its drivel then its drivel until otherwise is shown!

[LukeMC]

There is the conflict. You cannot claim that you have faith in God and can prove he exists. To have faith in something means there is no way of proving it without evidence. If you claim faith in God, I have no problems with you; you are entitled to your own beliefs. If you claim you have proof of God, I want to see the evidence.

I don't think s/he claimed s/he could proove God though did s/he? S/he said something like "one i can have proof on, the other i can't" implying that god's existance cannot be proven/backed up by evidence.

[fr0d0]

There is the conflict. You cannot claim that you have faith in God and can prove he exists.

Well that's what I said, yes (apart from the conflict part). As far as I can see, it's the non religious that are endlessly asking for evidence. So the conflict is them with themselves??

To have faith in something means there is no way of proving it without evidence.

erm.. and again

If you claim you have proof of God, I want to see the evidence.

I'd wan't to see the psychiatrist's report, as that'd be an impossible statement, which is my point.

---

Believing in God on faith - because you can't believe in him BASED on evidence - because there isn't any - isn't a good reason to believe!

Did somebody say it was?

That's backwards. If its drivel then its drivel until someone gives a good reason that its NOT drivel. You can't prove a negative - the burden of proof is on the 'drivel believer' - or someone who suggests drivel - to show that its not drivel. Its not on anyone to show that the drivel ISN'T drivel. If its drivel then its drivel until otherwise is shown!

You've missed the point EF. Nice rant about why you shouldn't believe in a God. Maybe another time

[leo-rcc]

Hey Fr0d0, you roamed over from ThinkingAloud I guess?

My statement has nothing to do with the existence of God. It's about the illogicality of requiring evidence for faith. If it's drivel, give a good reason why it isn't so.

To me the illogicality is having faith without any valid basis for it. I base my faith in seeing the Sun tomorrow on past experience and evidence that the Earth will keep spinning for quite some yet. Where do you base your faith on the existence of a god on if not evidence?

[Even Adam]

Well that's what I said, yes (apart from the conflict part). As far as I can see, it's the non religious that are endlessly asking for evidence. So the conflict is them with themselves??

No. The conflict is between the person who believes in a god because of faith(it has to be faith, as there is no evidence), and the person who does not believe in god because of the lack of evidence. The faithful believer is choosing faith over evidence as the determiner of what is real.

I'd wan't to see the psychiatrist's report, as that'd be an impossible statement, which is my point.

Therefore, you have faith in a god, despite lack of evidence. There's the conflict between belief based on faith and disbelief based on evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

The point is that faith itself is absurd. So if you don't believe on evidence and "have faith" - then your irrational and might as well believe in FSM. In other words, if so many religious people weren't religious and it was an anomaly like a REAL FSM believer would be an anomaly - then you'd be considered a loony.

Because believing in a big man in the sky for no reason is lunacy. Faith is not only not a good reason - is it even a reason at all? Isn't it just bare asserion? "I have faith". Or in other words: "There's no evidence. So I have to have faith".

If there was actual evidence of God then it would be rational to believe in him (if the evidence was strong enough of course) - you wouldn't need to claim faith!

Then burden of proof is on those who make claims that have no evidence supporting them. When people claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on them therefore - because there is no evidence of God.

I don't believe in God. Apparently me asking for evidence means that the conflict is with me (because I'm 'non-religious').

I don't believe in the FSM either so I guess the conflict is with myself then too eh? So if someone hypothetical believed genuinely 100% in the FSM and I asked for evidence then that would be absurd? The conflict is with me - not their absurd FSM believing brains.

If someone actually believed in the FSM you'd think they were a loony. The belief is indeed totally loony. So is belief in God. The conflict is with those who believe in the absurd with no evidence to support their belief (they "have faith") not those who have minds that are free from believing in the supernatural.

You've missed the point EF. Nice rant about why you shouldn't believe in a God. Maybe another time

Missed the point have I? I just corrected you on what I thought was completely incorrect. You don't need to show why something ISN'T drivel. If something's drivel then its assumed to be drivel until someone DOES show it isn't.

God is assumed to be drivel untill there is evidence of him.

So: its NOT ridiculous to require evidence of God. On the contrary, its ridiculous to believe in God WITHTOUT requiring evidence.

[Tiberius]

I don't even understand what he is on about anymore. It seems his religious views aren't the only things that are "changeable".

[Edwardo Piet]

Basically if he admits that he "has faith" and no evidence of God. And admits he believes in him without evidence - then that's basically like admitting to believe in the FSM. It is NOT ridiculous to ask for evidence of the ridiculous. It IS ridiculous to believe in the ridiculous without any evidence whatsoever to back it up!