Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[McBell]

Ooh
What’s on the devils menu?

Lying for Jesus?

 

[Clara Tea]

There are an infinite number of things to believe if we don't require evidence (Fred Flintstone is God)(Elmer Fudd is God)(George Burns is God....well, maybe he is).

But if we require proof before we believe, we eliminate an infinite number of things to believe in, and only believe what we can prove.

If we overlook proof (or proof isn't available), it is possible that God could exist though we just haven't proven it. Similarly, if we didn't happen to see the right proof, it is possible that Fred Flintstone is God. So, while we hold out the thin hope that Fred Flintstone is God, we can't prove it, so we can't believe it.

In other words, by refusing to believe, atheists don't disprove, they merely refuse to believe until there is proof.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Logic and reason are great as far as they go. But sometimes they don't go far enough. Some truths are best experienced by that part of us which is beyond the reasoning intellect. These are truths that can only be experienced, never fully understood or explained (though some great minds have tried).

Care to cite an example of such a truth?

 

[firedragon]

There are an infinite number of things to believe if we don't require evidence (Fred Flintstone is God)(Elmer Fudd is God)(George Burns is God....well, maybe he is).

But if we require proof before we believe, we eliminate an infinite number of things to believe in, and only believe what we can prove.

It is possible that something could be true though we have not yet proven it. So, it is possible that God could exist, though there is no proof yet found. If this is the case, I suppose that most people would be agnostics (those who are not sure), rather than atheists.

But, since the odds God existing might be so thin that people would prefer to be atheists rather than agnostics.

Thats not what I responded to. It was to your question about why people need faith.

No problem. If you want to discuss God, no problem. Just open a thread or a new post and pose your question with your epistemology. Please go ahead.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Care to cite an example of such a truth?

Certainly;

Nan-In, a Japanese master, received a university professor, who came to enquire about zen.

Nan-In served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he could no longer contain himself. “It’s over full. No more will go in!”

“Like this tea cup,” Nan-In said, “you are full of your own speculations and opinions. How can I show you zen, unless you first empty your cup?”

 

[ratiocinator]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...

Firstly, what's your definition of 'god'?

Secondly, for most popular god-concepts (literal 6 day, 6000 ya creationist type god being an exception), the answers are 'none' and 'none' which means the rational conclusion is to not have a belief in any god(s) until and unless we get some supporting evidence (or reasoning).

Compare to

The evidence that I have an invisible dragon in my garage is...

The evidence that I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage is...

 

[ratiocinator]

Science itself has always been with an approach that "if we aren't aware of something, that does not mean it isn't possible". That is where science begins and ends.

Indeed but a scientist that proposes something that we have not previously been aware of, will only be taken seriously if they can provide some basis for proposing it and (at least in principle) it is falsifiable.

The problem with most god-claims is that they are simply unfalsifiable, which is why they get compared to other (often absurd) unfalsifiable claims. It's a reductio ad absurdum approach.

 

[ratiocinator]

I agree. The same people that accuse people of faith of taking the bible literally also take it literally when they argue. Its quite humorous to me .

If you're arguing with somebody who takes the bible literally, then taking their assumptions and pointing out problems with it is a perfection valid approach to take. It's another case of reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

Frankly, I think this would work a lot better using a parallel example construction, with a conclusion. Thus:

• For the existence of a god, the evidence is...
• For the non-existence of a god, the evidence is...
• For the existence of a leprechaun, the evidence is...
• For the non-existence of a leprechaun, the evidence is...

You then follow up with a conclusion question:

"Based on the evidence or lack thereof presented above, I believe in the the existence of:"

• a god
• a leprechaun
• both
• neither

 

[firedragon]

Indeed but a scientist that proposes something that we have not previously been aware of, will only be taken seriously if they can provide some basis for proposing it and (at least in principle) it is falsifiable.

Yep.

The problem with most god-claims is that they are simply unfalsifiable, which is why they get compared to other (often absurd) unfalsifiable claims. It's a reductio ad absurdum approach.

Yep. Its a metaphysical problem. So you have not understood the problem. Also, comparing to strawman others is famous I know but nonsensical and logically fallacious. So as an atheist who claims intellect and all of these scientific superiority you should not engage in such activity. If this is your epistemology, then its your prerogative.

 

[loverofhumanity]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

I see the signs of God all around me, in nature and the universe and within myself. I cannot understand how anyone can miss these signs.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you have not understood the problem.

In what way?

Also, comparing to strawman others is famous I know but nonsensical and logically fallacious.

The comparison is about the lack of evidence either way (which is the subject of the thread) so a comparison to other things for which there is no evidence either way is a straw man because....?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see the signs of God all around me, in nature and the universe and within myself. I cannot understand how anyone can miss these signs.

That is because you are most likely misinterpreting those signs. People do that quite often. When investigated the "signs" are quite often merely confirmation bias.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I see the signs of God all around me, in nature and the universe and within myself. I cannot understand how anyone can miss these signs.

That is because you are most likely misinterpreting those signs. People do that quite often. When investigated the "signs" are quite often merely confirmation bias.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate...

 

[ratiocinator]

I see the signs of God all around me, in nature and the universe and within myself.

Okay, so which god, what signs, and why do you think this god is behind them?

 

[Psalm23]

I believe in God. I believe he is the Creator and sustainer of life.

 

[Psalm23]

Happy birthday @RestlessSoul !

 

[KerimF]

[1] Every human has the right to fool himself when he sees a robot in action and say it has no maker anytime he cannot find out even a single sign of him (the maker) other than his robot only.

[2] Every human has the right not to also see his instincts that guide him, with or without his knowledge, resemble somehow to robotic programming. Such a person likely didn’t hear yet that some of the new robots are designed and built with Artificial Intelligence with the hope they can act, as possible, like human do.

[3] But, JUST knowing that a certain Will/Energy exists behind my existence had no useful info at all by itself. It would be like saying I just know that a certain company exists and made the computer which I got as a gift (without user’s manuals). In this case and while I will try running that computer, my belief or disbelief of the existence of its maker won’t help me, in any way, in whatever I may do on it.

[4] My crucial question was, therefore, how to KNOW for sure (not by faith) the existing Will/Energy which is behind my existence.

Conclusion, whoever couldn’t perceive the Will/Energy behind his existence in him, he has no choice but to be guided by his instincts as all other living beings are supposed to do.
The good/great news is that every human on earth is somehow happy with the way he is created, aren’t you?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see the signs of God all around me, in nature and the universe and within myself. I cannot understand how anyone can miss these signs.

What else do you see in nature? Go to Youtube and search "horrible parasites," and tell me if you see signs of God in them, too.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

I do not believe there can ever be any convincing evidence ether for or against His existence.