Does evidence of God(s) exist?

[michel]

I'm sure you can also sleep without such direct manipulation of your brain, and many can have epileptic fits without such direct intervention.

They only difference is the stimulus. As with many other activities and experieneces, they took someone undergoing a "religious expereince" (they found someone that could do it on command and put her in a MRI), found out what her brain was doing to trigger it, and made a device to trigger the same thing. Much like putting alpha-waves into your brain to make you sleepy.

I don't deny it; I am sure you are right. The point I am making is that it often takes science a while to be able to give an explanation for something that occurs 'naturally' in nature.

 

[SSN]

I dont need that but thanks anyway

 

[Scuba Pete]

A major issue here is the definition of "evidence". It's NOT the same as "proof".

Does the evidence ACTUALLY exist? Sure. We have written evidences (the Bible), First hand reports (many Christians), anecdotal references (too many to cite), inferences (nature) and this could go on, and on. You have to decide how reliable that evidence is, but it does indeed exist.

For many, the evidence at hand is not remarkable. You just don't see the connection. While I can see the finger prints of God everywhere I look, you don't see squat. So you dismiss the evidence we claim out of hand, which is intellectually dishonest. Some say the evidence is "circular". When asked how so, they go into a tizzy and demand that we prove the opposite. They even have created a red herring out of it, but have never demonstrated the circularity that they boasted about. Why? They simply can't. It's not there.

As I have pointed out, the real issue is our heart. Those who have a heart for God will see him. Those who don't: won't! For some the eyes of their heart are darkened and they just can't or won't see.

Epesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. NIV

So weigh the evidence. If you find it compelling, then great. If not, well that's your choice as well.

II Timothy 1:12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. NIV

 

[JerryL]

The difference between "evidence" and "proof": Evidence is emperical, proof is logical.

Deer poop on the ground is evidence of a deer; the proof is "see, there's deer poop, that comes from a deer". You prove things *with* evidence. This is pretty basic English.

1 a : an outward sign : [size=-1]INDICATION[/size] b : something that furnishes proof : [size=-1]TESTIMONY[/size]; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
- http://m-w.com/dictionary/evidence

Does the evidence ACTUALLY exist? Sure. We have written evidences (the Bible), First hand reports (many Christians), anecdotal references (too many to cite), inferences (nature) and this could go on, and on. You have to decide how reliable that evidence is, but it does indeed exist.

That's called "testimony". It can be entered into evidence in legal proceedings under specific circumstances (you will note that it shows up in the Webster definition), but has no bearing in empirical studies. "I saw a black hole" is not evidence of one unless it's repeatable.

Also, in this case, the testimony is unqualified. Without the witness, it's "hearsay"; which is even inadmissable under legal precedent, far more so under emperical judgement. The Bible is, therefore, useful for understanding the beliefs of people at the time; but not foe establishing fact.

For many, the evidence at hand is not remarkable. You just don't see the connection. While I can see the finger prints of God everywhere I look, you don't see squat. So you dismiss the evidence we claim out of hand, which is intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

So how is "I don't see sunsets as proof of a God" intellectually dishonest? Please be specific when you make such blanket accusations. Personally, I would consider the accusation itself to be intellectually dishonest, as would I consider your assertions of "evidence vs proof".

Some say the evidence is "circular". When asked how so, they go into a tizzy and demand that we prove the opposite. They even have created a red herring out of it, but have never demonstrated the circularity that they boasted about. Why? They simply can't. It's not there.

Then I hold you to your standard here. You asserted that, when called to specific task, people don't respond on how something is circular. Give an example of a specific argument presented, which was then called circular, for which the accuser was unwilling to discuss the details.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Exremental, my deer Watson...

Evidence is an indication that makes something evident.

Proof is the validation of a concept or premise.

The magnitude, authenticity, relevance and scope of the evidence can be debated ad nauseum.

Are you SURE it's poop? How do you KNOW it's DEER poop? How old is the poop (fossilized?)? Did the poop originate here? All these may or may not point to the presence of the alleged deer in question. That we are discussing the poop though, means that it does exist and that the evidence in question needs to be scrutinized.

At this point, the level of "proof" (or validation) needed varies from individual to individual. Some process the presence of the poop immediately, while some may question it's very existence. Based on my analysis of the evidence in question, I say it's deer poop, and you claim it's existence is merely circular and thus non existent. Upon stepping in said poop (which you claimed to be non-existent), you now claim that since it is not there that it also doesn't stink. Whereas those of us who have managed to withhold our smirks thus far, quietly move upwind, all the while thinking: "It sucks to be you!" The deer, cringing from the smell of it's own excrement, also moves upwind whereby we enjoy seeing the deer, while you miss it completely! From the odor of your arguments it appears that you step in an awful lot of deer poop.

Give an example of a specific argument presented, which was then called circular, for which the accuser was unwilling to discuss the details.

So, you are saying you called Victor's argument "circular" but had no idea of the details? That's like putting the cart before the horse. If I label something, I try to know what I am labeling before I publish it on a public web site. This way, I can defend my assertions when asked, rather than relying on subterfuge and back peddling in order to save face. I'm smelling more deer poop, I'm afraid!

Well hey, it's been fun and it's certainly been "deep"! But I am off to go diving in cave country again this weekend. I don't know if I will have access to the internet, so try not to step in anything else while I am gone! You know, I think I am too pooped to dive! (I know: it's a crappy excuse).

 

[JerryL]

Evidence is an indication that makes something evident.

That would be redundent ("it's evidenced that it's evidence"?).

1 a : an outward sign : [size=-1]INDICATION[/size] b : something that furnishes proof : [size=-1]TESTIMONY[/size]; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter - http://m-w.com/dictionary/evidence

Proof is the validation of a concept or premise.

Close, Proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning - http://m-w.com/dictionary/proof

Isn't it interesting? The definition of "evidence" includes the word "proof", and "proof" includes "evidence". So let's talk about the cognitive processes involved:

Are you SURE it's poop? How do you KNOW it's DEER poop? How old is the poop (fossilized?)? Did the poop originate here? All these may or may not point to the presence of the alleged deer in question. That we are discussing the poop though, means that it does exist and that the evidence in question needs to be scrutinized.

You are tossing out a red-herring... none of your asides are in scope.

We've found deer poop. The deer poop is evidence. What is it evidence of? It's evidence of a deer. We can prove that there was a deer because we have the deer poop. Do we know more about the deer? Not with the facts I've put up, no.

So, you are saying you called Victor's argument "circular" but had no idea of the details? That's like putting the cart before the horse. If I label something, I try to know what I am labeling before I publish it on a public web site. This way, I can defend my assertions when asked, rather than relying on subterfuge and back peddling in order to save face. I'm smelling more deer poop, I'm afraid!

Victor did not put up an argument, he referenced one. I was and am willing to discuss the details. As soon as a cosmological argument is presented, I'll show how it's circular.

Feel free to open up a thread on the cosmological argument. I noticed you chicken out last time.

 

[Ormiston]

I'm still very hopefull someone can give us a first hand account of "evidence". I'm not interested in disproving the validity of it. I think that the bible made it very clear how important REAL events, REAL testimony, and the REAL PHYSICAL incarnation of God was to the history of Christianity. Historical events as well were huge. Where would Christianity be if Jesus was born a Roman?

 

[Fascist Christ]

I'm still very hopefull someone can give us a first hand account of "evidence". I'm not interested in disproving the validity of it. I think that the bible made it very clear how important REAL events, REAL testimony, and the REAL PHYSICAL incarnation of God was to the history of Christianity. Historical events as well were huge.

Anything that has order *can* have an orderer.
With cause and effect, there *can* be a first cause.

With these inconclusive observations, we also have the fact that some people feel that the Universe is just too perfect to exist without intention. This does not mean that it is true, but it is still reason.

Where would Christianity be if Jesus was born a Roman?

Likewise, what if he was buried in Potter's Field? Or left to hang and rot like the crucified often were? My religion relies on independent observations and reasoning. People usually become Deists by accident.

 

[Ormiston]

Likewise, what if he was buried in Potter's Field? Or left to hang and rot like the crucified often were? My religion relies on independent observations and reasoning. People usually become Deists by accident.

This simply is not how things are portrayed in the bible. Jesus performed miracles in front of people to capture their faith. The stories of his miracles were passed via word of mouth and the gospels. How come it's expected now that people simply accept the bible as truth and yet it took miracles and Jesus' ressurection to produce Christianity? The whole bible is of very specific, actual events. There is no where in the bible that accounts for reasoning.

 

[FFH]

Perhaps I didn't phrase the question well. Let's try again. Has anyone witnessed a miracle? To claim no evidence exists is to claim that the miracles in the bible do not exist. Has God or Gods spoken directly to anyone?

I have seen a miracle myself, ALSO, experienced a miracle healing myself, and ALSO, experienced the power of God capture me as I was hurled through the air at 20 miles an hour upside down. I was set down as light as a feather on my feet after being catapulted off my bike, while going downhill at 30 miles and hour. I hit the front brake to avoid a curb and the bike catapulted me off and I was flying through the air at 20 miles an hour and an unseen force (God's power) caught me and set me down as light as a feather.

I FELT THE POWER OF GOD AND IT IS AWESOME. GOD CARES FOR US.

 

[FFH]

"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."
1 Corinthians 4: 20

If you want documented miracle then go to www.askjeeves.com and type in two words DOCUMENTED MIRACLES and you will see a few sights offering documented miracles.

There is a documented and video taped modern day resurrection (man raised from the dead) that I have seen.

A video tape was rolling when a man was raised from the dead. It was shown by an evangelist name Reinhardt Bonnke on Trinity Broadcasting Network a few years ago. I saw a man raised from the dead with my own eyes. Stiff as a board raised from the dead.

I will search for the video and if I find it I will post it here.

 

[FFH]

I spelled his name wrong. It is Reinhard Bonnke.

Here is a link about the miracle of a man being raised from the dead.

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/bonnke_raisedpastor.asp

 

[FFH]

I guess the video of this CBN program no longer is available.

The video "Raised from the Dead" about Pastor Daniel Ekechukwu, from Nigeria, can be purchased for 35 bucks. If you want to see it then you have to buy it apparently. Call 1 (800) 714- 0200. If you want to buy it and see it.

 

[AtheistAJ]

I spelled his name wrong. It is Reinhard Bonnke.

Here is a link about the miracle of a man being raised from the dead.

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/bonnke_raisedpastor.asp

The video doesn't work, but I am sure it was a fake. It is easy to have someone alive get out of a grave pretending to have been dead. A skeletal resurrection would be different.

I am also familiar with many of those "documented miracles", they fill in most of the Bible. I still do not believe in anything that can't be explained except as a miracle.

The video "Raised from the Dead" about Pastor Daniel Ekechukwu, from Nigeria, can be purchased for 35 bucks.

I am not impressed. Shouldn't information be free to see? Especially Jesus' miracles. Why doesn't a god resurrect JFK for a while to convert us non-believers?

 

[FFH]

Shouldn't information be free to see? Especially Jesus' miracles.

Does anyone do anything for free anymore ???

I am sure that the video is out there floating around in cyber space somewhere for free. I will continue to look for this video tape of this man being raised from the dead. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It is not a fake.

 

[Fascist Christ]

This simply is not how things are portrayed in the bible. Jesus performed miracles in front of people to capture their faith. The stories of his miracles were passed via word of mouth and the gospels. How come it's expected now that people simply accept the bible as truth and yet it took miracles and Jesus' ressurection to produce Christianity? The whole bible is of very specific, actual events. There is no where in the bible that accounts for reasoning.

Which is exactly why I do not believe in the bible. For me to believe that Jesus was god, he would have to appear in front of me and say so. It would certainly be within his power, if he were god.

If one like him would perform miracles in front of me, I would give him as much credit as a magician. I have seen many clowns perform "miracles" and don't believe any one of them to be god.

I see no way of determining in this manner if one is a showman or a deity. Since the default logical assumption, and most common rational explanation, is that it is an illusion of some kind, then we would claim that the one professing to be god is a liar.

So, if there is a god, unless he chooses to promote disbelief, he would not use miracles to prove his existence, except by direct revelation. Consequently, direct revelation can only be meant for the receiver. Any other person would surely consider him mad if would claim god as talking to him. An exception yet to this rule would be if it were common place. Since I do not receive direct revelation, and I have not heard of an Atheist receiving direct revelation, I am lead to believe that this is not common place. In fact, unless I am the only one without and everyone else denies of any such connection, there are relatively few people who are scizophrenic.

In summary, there are no holy books, no prophet/medium, and no miracles in my religion. I consider such things as signs of lies.

 

[Fascist Christ]

Does anyone do anything for free anymore ???

I do. A true religion would require no money.

 

[Quiddity]

This simply is not how things are portrayed in the bible. Jesus performed miracles in front of people to capture their faith. The stories of his miracles were passed via word of mouth and the gospels. How come it's expected now that people simply accept the bible as truth and yet it took miracles and Jesus' ressurection to produce Christianity? The whole bible is of very specific, actual events. There is no where in the bible that accounts for reasoning.

Hogwash!! St. Paul did it with the Bereans who were resisting him by using the OT.
Acts 17:11-12 - The Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

Miracles were provided to jump start the Church from the set views of Judaism.

Never seen a miracle but yet I believe. God be thanked.

~Victor

 

[AtheistAJ]

Since I do not receive direct revelation, and I have not heard of an Atheist receiving direct revelation, I am lead to believe that this is not common place.

It is always religious people who claim "the lord spoke" to them. They say "You have to find the lord.", how am I supposed to find him if I don't know where he is? If he was almighty, all he has to do is let us all see him. I in fact asked if there is any god there I want to see (him?) now, never saw one. He won't show up. I guess the only logical explanation is that he's testing my individual faith in him (while homeless children die of famine and sickness without parents in Pakistan), end of story.

 

[Ormiston]

Hogwash!! St. Paul did it with the Bereans who were resisting him by using the OT.
Acts 17:11-12 - The Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).



~Victor

I stand corrected. My fault for being a bit overzealous with the blanket statements. Thanks Victor.