Evidence for God

[Trailblazer]

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence.

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone. If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone. That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

A case in point is what @It Aint Necessarily So said in #574 :

“What I say is that what you offer as evidence doesn't justify your conclusions about it. You have your own standards for justification different from the academic, legal, and scientific communities. Naturally, critical thinkers reject those other standards. That's not going to be changing.”

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

If you don’t know what God is how can you say that evidence for God would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities? That is not logical.

To claim that evidence for God, if there is any, would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities is nothing more than a personal opinion. Now if that is not his claim, and all he is saying is that he will not 'accept' any evidence for God that does not meet those standards, that is a reasonable statement, just as it would be reasonable for an Atheist to say they cannot believe in God without verifiable evidence. However, that is all about what they are willing to believe, not about what is actually possible.

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

 

[Windwalker]

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone.

Can you define what that should look like then, so that someone does not need to have a subjective experience? And why are you excluding the subjective experience as sufficient proof for evidence of God? What is your rationale for that? To experience God is to believe in God, in how I see it.

If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone.

Sure, subjective experience. "Taste and see, the Lord is good". Just that language itself is speaking of subjective experience. Tasting is a subjective experience, that offers direct knowledge to the taster.

That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

Yes, subjective experience is possible for everyone. But as you should know, there are obstacles in our lives that block that from happening.

Think of it in terms of eating nothing but greasy hamburgers and fries everyday, never exercising, never engaging the mind in anything stimulating, and then complaining that "health and vitality" are fictions because it's not something you are able to experience.

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

What evidence is that then, if you say that subjective experience is not sufficient?

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

I am offering logic reasoning here, and I do possess a fair degree of rational critical thinking skills, but also a fair degree of fairness to the topic of spiritual truth and reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you define what that should look like then, so that someone does not need to have a subjective experience? And why are you excluding the subjective experience as sufficient proof for evidence of God? What is your rationale for that? To experience God is to believe in God, in how I see it.

I am excluding the subjective experience as 'sufficient proof' for evidence of God, since it is only evidence for the person who experiences it.
You can see how well Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence went over on this thread:

Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

When speaking about evidences and proofs with regards to God here I am not speaking about scientific proofs but spiritual proofs. I believe that the human mind cannot grasp God so it is fruitless trying to prove God scientifically as we are told He is Spirit. Then to prove God we need to look...

www.religiousforums.com

Sure you are going to believe in God if you have experienced God but how many people do you think have experienced God? I have never experienced God, yet I have a strong belief in God.

Sure, subjective experience. "Taste and see, the Lord is good". Just that language itself is speaking of subjective experience. Tasting is a subjective experience, that offers direct knowledge to the taster.

That is not the kind of objective evidence that can be examined by 'everyone'.

Yes, subjective experience is possible for everyone. But as you should know, there are obstacles in our lives that block that from happening.

Think of it in terms of eating nothing but greasy hamburgers and fries everyday, never exercising, never engaging the mind in anything stimulating, and then complaining that "health and vitality" are fictions because it's not something you are able to experience.

It does not matter if it is 'possible' for everyone. If those obstacles exist, they exist. I don't think I have any obstacles that prevent that from happening, I just have not made any effort to experience God because I feel no need to do so. If one has a car but doesn't even take the car out of the driveway they cannot go driving down the street.

What evidence is that then, if you say that subjective experience is not sufficient?

As most everyone on this forum knows, I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence for God.

I am offering logic reasoning here, and I do possess a fair degree of rational critical thinking skills, but also a fair degree of fairness to the topic of spiritual truth and reality.

Maybe so, but you are on a completely different page from Atheists since you already believe in God so need no convincing.
You are offering logical reasoning from a convinced believer perspective but that won't work on Atheists since they want objective evidence.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Great topic, Trailblazer. I've got two things to say about your initial post...

If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone. That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

Remember what we said awhile back, about how if God had shown us evidence of Himself, it would actually do a lot more harm than good? You even quoted your prophet from Gleanings and he concurred with us that if God proved Himself it would be a disaster.

But remember, I am not a monotheist, I am a syntheist who believes reality will eventually turn into a mono- and omnitheistic society one day. Syntheism teaches that humans are creating God, and paired with pantheism, we believe that God is what nature is becoming, or ultimately is change. Because change happens all the time, existence itself is proof of God for me. The only way God couldn't exist in my paradigm is if nothing ever changed, and if that were the case, neither you or I would exist. Therefore being part of Earthseed and a syntheist makes it really easy to believe in God, and in a God that cannot reveal itself because there is no 'person' to reveal Himself to us. He is change and that's just the way I understand God and divine. Remember what I keep saying? "I know God exists because while things exist, everything has a chance of raising or lowering it's divinity"? Well, for me, it's abundantly true with humans.

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

I concur with this statement. Remember how I said to him that his problem wasn't the fact that he didn't believe in God, but rather, his problem was he didn't find anything worthy of his divine praise for that thing? Think about it. You could think anything is God. God is not bound by the Bible, the Quran, or other scriptures. @sun rise and many others think God is simply love, or the force that attracts people towards each other. I think God is change. It doesn't need to be a living, breathing identity to be worthy of our admiration and praise. But honestly, he's probably been an atheist for so long that he hasn't even considered the idea that there could be a God, let alone, actually think of what God would be had there be one.

You know @Trailblazer that both of us are theists but take a very sharp curve between what your theism is and what mine stands for - despite both of us being ardent believers of our faiths. People like @It Aint Necessarily So just aren't ever going to get it and instead of insisting that your viewpoints are correct and trying to force your opinion on others I say we should just let bygones be bygones and let him remain an atheist. It doesn't harm anyone, it doesn't change the course of anyone's lives, except his, and ultimately, his belief, or lack thereof, really doesn't amount much to anything. I know you like to debate, you like to show people proof of God and you'd like him to change his mind, but honestly at this point even if you did have enough insurmountable evidence to prove your God he'd just be in denial about it the entire time. And honestly, that's okay.

 

[Windwalker]

I am excluding the subjective experience as 'sufficient proof' for evidence of God, since it is only evidence for the person who experiences it.
You can see how well Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence went over on this thread:

Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

When speaking about evidences and proofs with regards to God here I am not speaking about scientific proofs but spiritual proofs. I believe that the human mind cannot grasp God so it is fruitless trying to prove God scientifically as we are told He is Spirit. Then to prove God we need to look...

www.religiousforums.com

I agree with the premise of that thread, that you have to look at something other than a scientific approach. My way of saying that is that those aren't the right set of eyes to use to perceive the spiritual nature of reality. It is not the reasoning mind that deduces God. Rather it is the spiritual heart that perceives God. The scientist may see the universe as nothing but atoms. But those who see God looking at the same thing, see a miracle. It's about seeing Beauty, versus dissecting the inner workings of a clock to understand how it functions.

Sure you are going to believe in God if you have experienced God but how many people do you think have experienced God? I have never experienced God, yet I have a strong belief in God.

And I think this is an important distinction for you to make here. What is it in you that "believes"? Is it because of a rational conclusion of the evidences, or is it something that inspires you, or something that "speaks to you" instead? I would argue strongly that it is the latter. And that what I say is a matter of faith. It's about what you are drawn towards spiritually. It's not about a rational proposition and you agree with it. It is offering something subjective, something personal to you. And that has to do with feelings, at one level of awareness or other.

That is not the kind of objective evidence that can be examined by 'everyone'.

Why should it be about that? Seeing Beauty is a subjective matter. Let's put it this way, I "believe" evolution is true, in the sense that I accept the data and the supporting facts behind it. But I'm not going to build an altar to it and worship Darwin, and try to live according the teachings of the fossil records. God is not a scientific matter. God is a matter of one's heart, or better stated, one's "being", which is much more than just the rational thinking processes of our brains.

It does not matter if it is 'possible' for everyone. If those obstacles exist, they exist.

It does matter. Because it means that those obstacles that created the problem to begin with can be overcome. That obstacles exist, isn't "God's" fault. There are many factors that contribute to the why of that.

I don't think I have any obstacles that prevent that from happening, I just have not made any effort to experience God because I feel no need to do so.

And you don't think not making an effort is itself an obstacle? I wonder, do you think that good health for instance, is something you shouldn't need to make any effort at, that it should just happen or not happen, and you play no role in that?

I think a lot of people see God that way. "If God were real, then he'd just write his name on the clouds for the whole world to see. Why wouldn't he? If he were all powerful and all loving and wanted people to believe in him, he would". Do you believe that way? I am actually quoting someone I knew years ago who said those very words. Can you recognize the flaw in his line of reasoning?

If one has a car but doesn't even take the car out of the driveway they cannot go driving down the street.

Well, I consider that an obstacle of their willingness to get in it and take it out of the garage for a spin.

As most everyone on this forum knows, I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence for God.

See to me, that is the least compelling reason I could think of personally for belief in God. I actually don't relate to that at all.

Maybe so, but you are on a completely different page from Atheists since you already believe in God so need no convincing.

You know, I did consider myself an atheist for around 10 years, after leaving fundamentalist Christianity? I understand the atheist mindset pretty well, having been one myself.

You are offering logical reasoning from a convinced believer perspective but that won't work on Atheists since they want objective evidence.

I don't consider myself a "convinced" believer. It was not a matter of reasoning for me, but a matter of perceptivity. Can an atheist who wants "objective evidence", for God ever find it? No. It's asking for the impossible. It is defining God as something that God is not, namely something, some object, some entitity or creature that exists outside of themselves, and outside of the universe as well. That's not God, and so of course, that will never be found. But what that is, is a Strawman argument. It creates the fallacy, then proves it can't be real, and takes credit for not believe what is nonsense to begin with.

It's like saying "my eyes don't exist because I can't find them laying around somewhere outside of myself", completely ignoring that they are looking through them in order to see them. You cannot divorce the subjective in ones search for evidence of God. It's the same thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know @Trailblazer that both of us are theists but take a very sharp curve between what your theism is and what mine stands for - despite both of us being ardent believers of our faiths. People like @It Aint Necessarily So just aren't ever going to get it and instead of insisting that your viewpoints are correct and trying to force your opinion on others

I am not insisting that my viewpoints are correct, I am only presenting them, just as you sometimes present yours. It isn't me who insists that my viewpoints are correct, it is @It Aint Necessarily So that insists that his are correct. I know that all I have are beliefs, which are my opinions, and all he has are opinions, yet he states his opinions as if they are facts.

I say we should just let bygones be bygones and let him remain an atheist. It doesn't harm anyone, it doesn't change the course of anyone's lives, except his, and ultimately, his belief, or lack thereof, really doesn't amount much to anything.

It is no skin off my nose if he remains an atheist as I have no dog in this fight. Like you said, it doesn't harm anyone if he remains an atheist, except possibly himself.

I know you like to debate, you like to show people proof of God and you'd like him to change his mind, but honestly at this point even if you did have enough insurmountable evidence to prove your God he'd just be in denial about it the entire time. And honestly, that's okay.

Looks can be deceiving. If I am in a debate, it is not for the purpose of changing anyone's mind, it is only for the intellectual process of debating. and what I learn in the process.

I know that no matter what evidence I had it would never be enough. The only evidence that would convinced a hard atheist is if God showed up on earth, but if that happened there would not be anyone left to believe since we would all be extinguished by the intensity of God's Light.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with the premise of that thread, that you have to look at something other than a scientific approach. My way of saying that is that those aren't the right set of eyes to use to perceive the spiritual nature of reality. It is not the reasoning mind that deduces God. Rather it is the spiritual heart that perceives God. The scientist may see the universe as nothing but atoms. But those who see God looking at the same thing, see a miracle. It's about seeing Beauty, versus dissecting the inner workings of a clock to understand how it functions.

I agree, and I think that is God's will that it is this way. The reason that atheists cannot see the beauty of Jesus and what is in the New Testament is because they view Him as just an ordinary man, and the same goes for Baha'u'llah and what He wrote. They are perceiving with their minds and not their hearts, when they need to be perceived both both mind and heart.

Matthew 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.”

Matthew 6:21 “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

59: O SON OF BEING! Thy heart is My home; sanctify it for My descent. Thy spirit is My place of revelation; cleanse it for My manifestation.The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 17

“Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men—hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue.”
Gleanings, p. 279

And I think this is an important distinction for you to make here. What is it in you that "believes"? Is it because of a rational conclusion of the evidences, or is it something that inspires you, or something that "speaks to you" instead? I would argue strongly that it is the latter. And that what I say is a matter of faith. It's about what you are drawn towards spiritually. It's not about a rational proposition and you agree with it. It is offering something subjective, something personal to you. And that has to do with feelings, at one level of awareness or other.

I don't think it is the same for everyone, but for me it is both. I first had to form a rational conclusion from the evidences and much later I was drawn spiritually to the scriptures. So for me it is both thoughts and feelings.

Why should it be about that? Seeing Beauty is a subjective matter. Let's put it this way, I "believe" evolution is true, in the sense that I accept the data and the supporting facts behind it. But I'm not going to build an altar to it and worship Darwin, and try to live according the teachings of the fossil records.

I am not saying it 'should be', but if evidence has a snowball's chance in hell of convincing an atheist it has to be comprised of facts, something tangible.

God is not a scientific matter. God is a matter of one's heart, or better stated, one's "being", which is much more than just the rational thinking processes of our brains.

I could not have said that better myself. As I often say, religion is not science and science is not religion. Atheists don't seem to understand the difference so they conflate the two.

It does matter. Because it means that those obstacles that created the problem to begin with can be overcome. That obstacles exist, isn't "God's" fault. There are many factors that contribute to the why of that.

Well said! I don't know how it can be overcome but it certainly is not God's fault. Many factors contribute to the obstacles.

And you don't think not making an effort is itself an obstacle? I wonder, do you think that good health for instance, is something you shouldn't need to make any effort at, that it should just happen or not happen, and you play no role in that?

No, I don't think it is an obstacle in the way of me knowing God, which is all I consider important for myself. I do not need to have a personal experience with God, although I am always aware of God's presence and the guidance I get. No, I don't think it will just happen, I would have to make an effort.

Good health is different because one cannot live if they get a serious disease, so it could be a life or death matter. By contrast, I can live without feeling a personal connection to God. If I analyze this I am probably this way since I have difficulty feeling love given my childhood. I think we discussed this some time ago.

I think a lot of people see God that way. "If God were real, then he'd just write his name on the clouds for the whole world to see. Why wouldn't he? If he were all powerful and all loving and wanted people to believe in him, he would". Do you believe that way? I am actually quoting someone I knew years ago who said those very words. Can you recognize the flaw in his line of reasoning?

Interestingly, that is what some atheists have suggested that God should do, write in the sky "I am God and I exist."

One flaw in the reasoning is what I told them, that the writing in the sky would not be proof of God since nobody could ever know that God was the one who wrote it. The other flaw is that if people believed it was proof of God then they would no longer have to have faith, and God wants to believed on faith and evidence, not on proof.

Well, I consider that an obstacle of their willingness to get in it and take it out of the garage for a spin.

Yes, if they want to go for a spin.

See to me, that is the least compelling reason I could think of personally for belief in God. I actually don't relate to that at all.

Different strokes for different folks, but please bear in mind that if there had never been Messengers who acted as intermediaries between man and God, very few people would believe in God.

You know, I did consider myself an atheist for around 10 years, after leaving fundamentalist Christianity? I understand the atheist mindset pretty well, having been one myself.

I can understand why you would have been an atheist after leaving fundamentalist Christianity. You certainly are not the only one, although you are the only one I know of who became a believer.

I don't consider myself a "convinced" believer. It was not a matter of reasoning for me, but a matter of perceptivity. Can an atheist who wants "objective evidence", for God ever find it? No. It's asking for the impossible. It is defining God as something that God is not, namely something, some object, some entitity or creature that exists outside of themselves, and outside of the universe as well. That's not God, and so of course, that will never be found. But what that is, is a Strawman argument. It creates the fallacy, then proves it can't be real, and takes credit for not believe what is nonsense to begin with.

That has been my point. God can never be 'found' because God is not, a thing, an object, entity or creature that exists that can be tracked down with a GPS tracker.

It's like saying "my eyes don't exist because I can't find them laying around somewhere outside of myself", completely ignoring that they are looking through them in order to see them. You cannot divorce the subjective in ones search for evidence of God. It's the same thing.

I think there is both an objective and a subjective component involved in finding evidence for God and they work hand in hand.

 

[Heyo]

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence.

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone. If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone. That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

A case in point is what @It Aint Necessarily So said in #574 :

“What I say is that what you offer as evidence doesn't justify your conclusions about it. You have your own standards for justification different from the academic, legal, and scientific communities. Naturally, critical thinkers reject those other standards. That's not going to be changing.”

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

If you don’t know what God is how can you say that evidence for God would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities? That is not logical.

To claim that evidence for God, if there is any, would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities is nothing more than a personal opinion. Now if that is not his claim, and all he is saying is that he will not 'accept' any evidence for God that does not meet those standards, that is a reasonable statement, just as it would be reasonable for an Atheist to say they cannot believe in God without verifiable evidence. However, that is all about what they are willing to believe, not about what is actually possible.

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

That's basically my critique of Atheism and the reason I'm an Agnostic.
But you claim to know what a god is and I challenge that claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's basically my critique of Atheism and the reason I'm an Agnostic.
But you claim to know what a god is and I challenge that claim.

I am not sure how you are defining Atheism and Agnosticism and how those definitions apply to the content of my post.
What is your critique of Atheism?
What is the reason you are an Agnostic, because you don't think you can know that God exists or becaue you don't think you can know anything about God?

I do not claim to know what God is, I only believe I can know some of the attributes of God.

 

[Heyo]

I am not sure how you are defining Atheism and Agnosticism and how those definitions apply to the content of my post.
What is your critique of Atheism?

That Atheists think they know what a god is. They don't.

What is the reason you are an Agnostic, because you don't think you can know that God exists or becaue you don't think you can know anything about God?

I don't know what a god is and nobody else does. I'm still undecided if it is possible to know what a god is.

I do not claim to know what God is, I only believe I can know some of the attributes of God.

I could probably agree with that. State your attributes and your evidence and we'll discuss.

 

[danieldemol]

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

The problem with this analogy is that the missionaries are closest in this analogy to the investigators who *are* supposed to know what it is they are asking people to find.

The only problem being that the missionaries seem unable to know what it is they are directing people to look for either.

So if even the investigators don't know what it is they are looking for, how do we know they are looking for any real thing?

I believe the intellectually honest answer is we don't *know*

In my opinion.

 

[viole]

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence.

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone. If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone. That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

A case in point is what @It Aint Necessarily So said in #574 :

“What I say is that what you offer as evidence doesn't justify your conclusions about it. You have your own standards for justification different from the academic, legal, and scientific communities. Naturally, critical thinkers reject those other standards. That's not going to be changing.”

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

If you don’t know what God is how can you say that evidence for God would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities? That is not logical.

To claim that evidence for God, if there is any, would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities is nothing more than a personal opinion. Now if that is not his claim, and all he is saying is that he will not 'accept' any evidence for God that does not meet those standards, that is a reasonable statement, just as it would be reasonable for an Atheist to say they cannot believe in God without verifiable evidence. However, that is all about what they are willing to believe, not about what is actually possible.

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

Well, then I suggest you gave us a definition of God, and we analyze the evidence thereof. I also hope I do not have to make the same same analogy with natives from the jungle, applied to theists instead, not knowing what evidence is.

We have to make the assumption that you know what God is, since you claim you have evidence thereof, otherwise you would be like someone asking for evidence of a fallen plane without knowing what a plane is. Additionally, we can make the assumption that your definition will be understood by me, unless you claim I am the equivalent of a native from the jungle that cannot understand planes not even after a descriptions of planes.

Preferably, the definition should be clear-cut, and not involve something like personal experiences, invisible things that only some can see, and such, for the simple reason that they can be used to show evidence of basically everything, which would make a mockery of the very meaning of evidence.

So, what is God, and what is the evidence of such a thing?

Ciao

- viole

 

[osgart]

Well, then I suggest you gave us a definition of God, and we analyze the evidence thereof. I also hope I do not have to make the same same analogy with natives from the jungle, applied to theists instead, not knowing what evidence is.

We have to make the assumption that you know what God is, since you claim you have evidence thereof, otherwise you would be like someone asking for evidence of a fallen plane without knowing what a plane is. Additionally, we can make the assumption that your definition will be understood by me, unless you claim I am the equivalent of a native from the jungle that cannot understand planes not even after a descriptions of planes.

Preferably, the definition should be clear-cut, and not involve something like personal experiences, invisible things that only some can see, and such, for the simple reason that they can be used to show evidence of basically everything, which would make a mockery of the very meaning of evidence.

So, what is God, and what is the evidence of such a thing?

Ciao

- viole

Evidence has to be physical? Or can some character ability be evident as well?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, then I suggest you gave us a definition of God, and we analyze the evidence thereof. I also hope I do not have to make the same same analogy with natives from the jungle, applied to theists instead, not knowing what evidence is.

We have to make the assumption that you know what God is, since you claim you have evidence thereof, otherwise you would be like someone asking for evidence of a fallen plane without knowing what a plane is. Additionally, we can make the assumption that your definition will be understood by me, unless you claim I am the equivalent of a native from the jungle that cannot understand planes not even after a descriptions of planes.

Preferably, the definition should be clear-cut, and not involve something like personal experiences, invisible things that only some can see, and such, for the simple reason that they can be used to show evidence of basically everything, which would make a mockery of the very meaning of evidence.

So, what is God, and what is the evidence of such a thing?

Ciao

- viole

Well, yes, as religious I do understand what you are saying.
But there is a way around the limit of evidence.

Now it comes at a price, namely don't claim evidence, truth or proof.

So here it is:
Me: It is observable that I have faith in God even for a natural world.
Someone to the effect of the following: But that is useless.
Me: But that is natural. I am not doing something that is unnatural, thus I follow a natural world.

So in short for the world is natural and the answer: No, it is not. Even though it is wrong and all that, it is natural.

 

[viole]

Evidence has to be physical? Or can some character ability be evident as well?

Anything that cannot be defeated by something with the same evidence. Anything that can be defeated by naturalistic explanations, even is that has zero evidence, will get its own evidence canceled.

For instance: claiming that the Universe is finely tuned to require a tuner, is defeated by postulating the existence of an eternal random generator of universes with random constants, and so some are bound to be fine tuned for everything. The latter claim has the same evidence of the God one, and therefore cancels the evidence of the original positive claim, since it has zero evidence.

Or that does not contain fallacious arguments, like the ubiquitous circular reasoning, or special pleading.

For instance, claiming that order necessitates an orderer, would entail that the orderer is not ordered, if it has not been ordered by another orderer. Claiming the orderer is an exception, is special pleading, and therefore logically invalid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anything that cannot be defeated by something with the same evidence. Anything that can be defeated by naturalistic explanations, even is that has zero evidence, will get its own evidence canceled.

For instance: claiming that the Universe is finely tuned to require a tuner, is defeated by postulating the existence of an eternal random generator of universes with random constants, and so some are bound to be fine tuned for everything. The latter claim has the same evidence of the God one, and therefore cancels the evidence of the original positive claim, since it has zero evidence.

Or that does not contain fallacious arguments, like the ubiquitous circular reasoning, or special pleading.

For instance, claiming that order necessitates an orderer, would entail that the orderer is not ordered, if it has not been ordered by another orderer. Claiming the orderer is an exception, is special pleading, and therefore logically invalid.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, being irrational is natural. Good you realized that.

 

[Trailblazer]

That Atheists think they know what a god is. They don't.

Atheists 'think they know' what God would and should do, if God existed, and since no God is observed doing that, they withhold belief.
This is regarding what evidence would be for God if God existed but it is about much more. They also believe that God should play Superman.
Atheists don't know what God would or should do if God existed, but if God exists what we see is what we get. That's logic..

I don't know what a god is and nobody else does. I'm still undecided if it is possible to know what a god is.

I am not sure what you mean by 'what a god is.'

I could probably agree with that. State your attributes and your evidence and we'll discuss.

I believe the only way we can know what God's attributes are is through what the Messengers of God reveal about God, and the Messengers also reflect some, but not all, of God's attributes.

Some of God’s most important attributes are: Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, Sovereign, Eternal, Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, All-Good, All-Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient.

Certain attributes are unique to God. Only God is Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, so nobody except God can have those attributes.

 

[viole]

Yeah, being irrational is natural. Good you realized that.

It is not difficult. That is the main reason theism is much more widespread than atheism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

The only problem being that the missionaries seem unable to know what it is they are directing people to look for either.

So if even the investigators don't know what it is they are looking for, how do we know they are looking for any real thing?

In my analogy, the investigators 'do know' what an airplane is so they could identify an airplane at a crash site.
It is the natives who 'don't know' what the investigators are talking about since they don't know what an airplane is.

 

[viole]

I believe the only way we can know what God's attributes are is through what the Messengers of God reveal about God, and the Messengers also reflect some, but not all, of God's attributes.

Some of God’s most important attributes are: Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, Sovereign, Eternal, Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, All-Good, All-Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient.

Certain attributes are unique to God. Only God is Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, so nobody except God can have those attributes.

So, let's get through those attributes and submit the evidence to rational scrutiny. As you requested.

What have you got? I hope it is not only what some self declared messengers claim .


Ciao

- viole