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.
