Can we accept there is no evidence for god

[an anarchist]

Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god? And can we realize that that's ok?

With all these threads recently, i feel inspired to make one.

I'm a diviner. I can point to my readings that a higher power is communicating with me. But in the end it could be my mind that is doing mental gymnastics.

Bar a booming voice coming from heaven (which doesnt happen), there is no proof! And that's ok

 

[sun rise]

There is no proof to the rational mind because the Divine is beyond that mind and its logic.

 

[dybmh]

there is no proof! And that's ok

^^ Today's daily affirmation from the most honorable Xavier Graham.

 

[Starlight]

I believe this life is a test from God. This life is like a school. That is the reason God is hiding. Because if God showed himself to all humans then this life would not have been a test anymore.

"No evidence of God" is because of this a bad argument against God.

I believe in God without evidence because God is hiding on purpose.

 

[Heyo]

Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god? And can we realize that that's ok?

With all these threads recently, i feel inspired to make one.

I'm a diviner. I can point to my readings that a higher power is communicating with me. But in the end it could be my mind that is doing mental gymnastics.

Bar a booming voice coming from heaven (which doesnt happen), there is no proof! And that's ok

That's all I'm asking of theists. I know other atheists and Agnostics are going further but they really shouldn't. Once a believer accepts their status, it should be OK and the end of the debate. People are free to believe what they want, how wrong it may be.
As one can't conclude to be superior or entitled to privileges from mere believe, there is no danger going out from them.

 

[Viker]

New Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god? And can we realize that that's ok?

Yes. At least I can.

 

[ChristineM]

Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god?

I accepted that over 35 years ago.

And can we realize that that's ok?

It's fine by me

 

[John53]

Plenty of evidence but none of it valid or convincing (to me at least) and definitely no proof.

 

[Rival]

No.

 

[Ella S.]

I can't agree that there is no evidence for God. There is evidence for God. I'd wager that most people who believe in God do so because the evidence leads them to that conclusion.

All of the evidence I've seen for God has been weak evidence, like "my priest says it's true and I trust him on this because he seems trustworthy and knowledgeable." Some people might say that's not evidence, but I think that's uncharitable. It is evidence.

We can investigate this evidence further by double-checking that this priest truly is honest and knowledgeable. So far, when we do this, the authorities that claim that God exists actually aren't as knowledgeable about God's existence as they claim. From priests to theologians, none of them have hard or conclusive evidence for any of their claims.

One might be tempted to say that this means that the original evidence wasn't actually evidence at all, but evidence is just an observation that increases the likelihood of a conclusion. From the perspective of the original speaker, they did have evidence: from their perspective, their priest had always been honest and had always been right about these sorts of topics, and so it would be perfectly rational for them to think that their priest would be right about this, too. That's the core of Bayesian analysis, after all.

So I think there are a lot of people that are quite rational and believe in God based on evidence. I just think that, through no fault of their own, they're often missing key information that undermines their evidence.

Of course, some of them might be privy to strong evidence for God, because maybe God does exist in some form and I'm the one that's missing key information. I can't know for sure until I actually have a discussion with them.

Although, I'll admit that, in my experience, it's rare that someone's belief in God is actually formed based on evidence. Most of the time it seems to be based more on the fact that they want God to be real, or they have some sort of strong feeling or conviction that God is real, which is irrational and genuinely not evidence of anything.

(ETA: And they might try to use evidence in debates to try to argue for their perspective, but it's rarely evidence that they themselves stake their beliefs on because they don't believe based on evidence to begin with.)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god?

No.

There is plenty of evidence of god(s).

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I refuse to accept this notion.

God is a description of something, not an actual being. Divine traits are in just about everything, and divinity fluctuates as things change. I see evidence of God every day. Between the endlessness of our own Universe, the utilities that humans have developed, to my own wisdom that seems to carry and develop throughout the years, I don't see God, Godhood and the ultimate divine as black or white, but is vivid through many shades and colors as humans represent the best that Earth has to offer. Our abilities to become more divine, both in the individual and collectively together, is more than enough evidence that humans represent the Gods of this planet; hence why I wanted to keep the religious title of Earthseed.

Does any one single thing hold all the divinity? Of course not. In fact, as with entropy and the laws of thermodynamics goes, that may be impossible. But as things develop, age and mature, they have the ability to become more than what they are, becoming more Godlike every day. I, you and everybody else experiences God everyday. Synverses, or things that are able to change, which include the Syntheoses themselves, are an example of how things become more divine over time, with the cumulation of all synverses developing into one grand unified Synverse one day, becoming the Syntheos of The Omniverse. God is both acquired by both ultimate nature and ultimate humanity, and how both of them interact together, creates and develops God and Godhood between ourselves and within our surroundings.

God is what nature is becoming.

 

[Quintessence]

Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god?

No, because there is abundant evidence for gods for many people.

How you assess evidence for the gods depends on what you believe gods are, and what you believe evidence is. The people who have trouble understanding there is evidence for the gods are those who define gods and evidence in a way that make those two things mutually exclusive for themselves. The stories they tell themselves has no bearing on the rest of us who understand these concepts differently. Doubly so if your gods fall outside the tired old classical monotheism that practically everyone in the English speaking world references as if it's the only understanding of god out there (but isn't).

 

[Rival]

Doubly so if your gods fall outside the tired old classical monotheism that practically everyone in the English speaking world references as if it's the only understanding of god out there (but isn't).

And even if it is the God of Classical Monotheism, it's been around for 2,000+ years now. Do people really think we believed in something for 2,000 years with no evidence whatsoever? There were philosophers from all traditions writing philosophical and theological works on this that went above and beyond I imagine what most modern people have ever bothered reading because Richard Dawkins said something so that cleared it all up. If people dismissed science as easily as they dismiss philosophy they'd be pulled up on it more, but because it's philosophy and theology no-one cares.

 

[Quintessence]

And even if it is the God of Classical Monotheism, it's been around for 2,000+ years now. Do people really think we believed in something for 2,000 years with no evidence whatsoever? There were philosophers from all traditions writing philosophical and theological works on this that went above and beyond I imagine what most modern people have ever bothered reading because Richard Dawkins said something so that cleared it all up. If people dismissed science as easily as they dismiss philosophy they'd be pulled up on it more, but because it's philosophy and theology no-one cares.

Thanks for raising this point. To add another, insisting that evidence (however defined) is even important on this matter strikes me as odd. Fixating on evidence is utterly missing the point of accepting gods into one's way of life. So much so that I often have a hard time understanding this misplaced obsession. Like, you've got this thing in your life that inspires awe and wonder, meaning and gratitude, and someone goes and yelps "BUT ITZ NOT REALZ." Er, kay? Buzzkill much?

 

[Rival]

Thanks for raising this point. To add another, insisting that evidence (however defined) is even important on this matter strikes me as odd. Fixating on evidence is utterly missing the point of accepting gods into one's way of life. So much so that I often have a hard time understanding this misplaced obsession. Like, you've got this thing in your life that inspires awe and wonder, meaning and gratitude, and someone goes and yelps "BUT ITZ NOT REALZ." Er, kay? Buzzkill much?

It's like looking at something wonderful with a telescope and then the person you're describing the wonder to saying, 'But how do you know the telescope exists?'

Because it's the means I use of viewing the wonder!

 

[Quintessence]

Maybe change the premise of the OP to "can we accept that some people believe there is (or is no) evidence for god(s) and realize that's okay?"

I can totally dig that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can we finally accept there is no evidence for god? And can we realize that that's ok?

With all these threads recently, i feel inspired to make one.

I'm a diviner. I can point to my readings that a higher power is communicating with me. But in the end it could be my mind that is doing mental gymnastics.

Bar a booming voice coming from heaven (which doesnt happen), there is no proof! And that's ok

Let's assume that the answer to your question is "yes, we can accept there's no evidence for God -- and that's okay." What does that mean, in practice? Because after all, it is always wrong to assume that what you believe has no effect on how you behave, and how you behave has no secondary, perhaps unwanted, side-effects.

I would have to say, to any individual who tells me, "I believe in God, and I have no evidence, but I'm not going to change my mind -- because I believe it too strongly." I have to tell you, if this were in person (not in a debate forum) I would simply say, "you are welcome to believe what you will."

Now, what if that person then says to me, "okay, thanks. But now I have to tell you that my belief says that you being a homosexual is a serious wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself for it." What should I say then? Should I give in to his whim and be ashamed? Why or why not?

You see, people who believe in God with no evidence at all, when they get together in groups (called churches, or sects, or whole religions) like to go further than just state their belief -- they really want that belief to become the rules for the whole of the society in which they live. Do not tell me that churches don't have political agendas. Do not tell me that religions don't try to influence the making of laws. I'm too old, I've lived it. I know exactly how it is, and I've fought against them most of my life.

Because here's the deal: if you believe something for which you can provide no evidence -- you have no argument that can be considered even remotely beholding upon anyone else. You are allowed to believe that modern technology is wrong, as the Amish do, but you have no right to tell anybody to stop driving, or throw their TV or computer away. If you want to argue against same-sex marriage, find compelling reasons that do not have anything to do with your religious beliefs, because your religious beliefs are meaningless and worthless to anyone who doesn't hold them. If you can think of a valid reason, not based upon something for which you have no evidence, why two men or two women shouldn't love and marry one another, I will listen attentively. If you tell me, "God doesn't like it," I'll tell you to sod off.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for raising this point. To add another, insisting that evidence (however defined) is even important on this matter strikes me as odd. Fixating on evidence is utterly missing the point of accepting gods into one's way of life. So much so that I often have a hard time understanding this misplaced obsession. Like, you've got this thing in your life that inspires awe and wonder, meaning and gratitude, and someone goes and yelps "BUT ITZ NOT REALZ." Er, kay? Buzzkill much?

I have pointed out to some theists that it is not wise to use the evidence argument for God. But it seems that they are so anxious to claim that their version of god is real that they will insist that they have evidence. And not just weak evidence, but rational reliable evidence. At that point I will demand that they show what evidence they have. To date not one has provided any. As to a belief in God there may be all sorts of justifiable reasons for an individual. Just do not make the claim of "evidence" without being able to support it.

The only time that I will use the "BUT ITS NOT REALZ" claim is when one abuses one's faith and claim that it has evidence when it does not.

 

[an anarchist]

Plenty of evidence but none of it valid or convincing (to me at least) and definitely no proof.

Perhaps this is an elementary question, but what is the difference between proof and evidence?