Evidence of God existence

[HonestJoe]

I thought the same, started a thread, but "defining God" just seems kind of a problem

It shouldn’t be a problem for anyone asserting that there is evidence supporting the existence of a specific God. The “problems” with defining gods is that theists can’t agree on anything (even theists who nominally follow the same religion), various characteristics attributed to gods are either internally contradictory or conflict with established fact and the related issue that many definitions include elements of “supernatural”, specifically defined as being outside the scope of science or human understanding (which is convenient ).

Thinking of it, I think this must drive Atheists crazy. Science likes to solve puzzles.

Well there’s no automatic link between atheism and science of course but speaking for myself personally, this doesn’t drive me crazy at all. I’ve no issue defining “god” because I’m not seeking to define it as something which does or can exist. As an abstract concept (or possibly multiple abstract concepts), it isn’t at all problematic.

 

[Walterbl]

So what caused God?
Why does everything require a cause?

Thats the point. We can't go backwards to infinity, so a first cause must be postulated.

Where did all the matter, energy, space time, came from?

There's a natural explanation for that.

More like an attempt. Evolution is not as well supported by evidence as you think.

Bunk. Statistical sleight -of-hand. Manufactured parameters.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

The reports of divine experiences and otherworldly beings vary considerably.

And there are thousand and thousands of them. In order for theism to be validated, only one of them must be real. In order for atheism to be true, ALL of them must be false. Basic statistics favor the theist.

Imaginary.

Nope. The gospels fit the criteria for historical accuracy as used by most historians. Christianity wouldn't have made it past the first century if it was all fabricated.

 

[PureX]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

Our own existence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The cosmological argument: Everything (the universe, reality, existence) requires and explanation, a first cause.

God doesn't get an out on this one. It has to be established what caused god, but not only that, why god is arbitrarily marked as this first cause?

Thousands of people who have claimed to have divine experiences or contact with otherwordly beings.

So? Thousands of schizophrenics claim to have divine experiences, but that doesn't make those experiences real.

The scripture.

The Bible is a pretty lame source as far as proving Biblical things goes, as of course it is going to confirm itself. And all the self-contradictions muddle the point of using what the Bible says to prove what the Bible says.

Historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus

Of which there is none.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More like an attempt. Evolution is not as well supported by evidence as you think.

Evolution is better understood than gravity.

And there are thousand and thousands of them. In order for theism to be validated, only one of them must be real. In order for atheism to be true, ALL of them must be false. Basic statistics favor the theist.

Statistics do not work like that. What doesn't look good for theists though is that there are so many such accounts, demonstrating that no one has it right since all the different groups and beliefs have such experiences.

Nope. The gospels fit the criteria for historical accuracy as used by most historians.

Is that why most historians don't use the Bible as a history book?

Christianity wouldn't have made it past the first century if it was all fabricated.

Most Christians couldn't read the Bible then.

 

[PureX]

God doesn't get an out on this one. It has to be established what caused god, but not only that, why god is arbitrarily marked as this first cause?

"God", by definition, does not.

So? Thousands of schizophrenics claim to have divine experiences, but that doesn't make those experiences real.

It doesn't make the 'unreal', either.

The Bible is a pretty lame source as far as proving Biblical things goes, as of course it is going to confirm itself. And all the self-contradictions muddle the point of using what the Bible says to prove what the Bible says.

This depends entirely on how one interprets the text.

... Of which there is none.

You're demanding proof, not considering the evidence. That, to me, indicates a very strong bias that is seeking to protect and maintain itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

What did Jesus say when you asked Him this question?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

First off, absolutely nothing is sufficient evidence for God. And by sufficient, I'm talking about something that proves God's existence, intersubjectively and verifiably, beyond a shadow of doubt. That shadow of doubt surrounding "God" and doubts on the myriad ideas people bring to the table, as well as the fact that there are so very many of those ideas is just too large to ignore, in my opinion.

At any rate, the best evidence, from what I gather, seems to be of the anecdotal/personal variety. Though I feel I should stress that none of any of that type of evidence that I have heard has ever been all that compelling to me. In the past, when someone has told me they have a personal testimony that proved God to them, I would be expecting something grand and profound... or at the very least, something that must have been undeniable to them. But I have been disappointed on that front so many times that I am pretty much inured, and basically expect that people's personal revelations are going to be mediocre and fairly unimportant - and on that score I since have yet to be disappointed.

 

[ChristineM]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

None, with evidence what is the need for faith

 

[Valjean]

Thats the point. We can't go backwards to infinity, so a first cause must be postulated.

Why? Reality doesn't conform to our commonsense experience of cause and effect. Actual reality, it turns out, is wildly counterintuitive.
Causes may be overrated.

Where did all the matter, energy, space time, came from?

We don't know, entirely. This is an active area of research, but postulating an invisible, supernatural being working magic isn't a reasonable "explanation."
We've been attributing unexplained phenomena to Gods and demons for thousands of years, and every time we discover the natural mechanism behind God's magic He retreats to some other, unexplained puzzle.
Why is God always at the margin of human understanding?

More like an attempt. Evolution is not as well supported by evidence as you think.

Is this a Poe? Evolution is one of the best supported, most consilient facts in history. The germ theory or heliocentrism are wild speculation in comparison.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Why is abiogenesis "statistically impossible?" The elements of life are known to form naturally. Why is self assembly and life unbelievable?
Do you believe there was once a time when there was no life on Earth? Do you believe Earth now has life? If so, the statistically probability is demonstrated to be 100%, and you, yourself, believe in abiogenesis. Only the question of mechanism remains.

And there are thousand and thousands of them. In order for theism to be validated, only one of them must be real. In order for atheism to be true, ALL of them must be false. Basic statistics favor the theist.

No. Theism is unsupported, and atheism cannot be "true" because it makes no assertions. Validation requires something to be validated. Atheism is a default, not a belief.

Validation requires consistent, testable, tangible, repeatable facts. These spiritual experiences are all over the board, as are the 'spiritual beings' these people report.

Nope. The gospels fit the criteria for historical accuracy as used by most historians.

Quite the opposite. There are no first person accounts of Jesus, and the gospels are inconsistent and contradictory.

Hearsay and folkore are not considered accurate evidence by historians.

Christianity wouldn't have made it past the first century if it was all fabricated.

Why not? Lots of myths and myth-based religions become persistent and widespread. You argue ad populum.

Our own existence.

Our existence can be explained by natural means. No magic required.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Valjean]

"God", by definition, does not.

Does not what?

It doesn't make the 'unreal', either.

But it does make it not evidence.

This depends entirely on how one interprets the text.

Clear inaccuracies and contradictions aren't easily interpreted away.

You're demanding proof, not considering the evidence. That, to me, indicates a very strong bias that is seeking to protect and maintain itself.

No, all we're demanding is evidence.
Where is this evidence you'd have us consider?

 

[Quintessence]

Well, for me it works like this.

Calling something a deity or a god is applying a title or honorific, much like calling someone a doctor or a general. It indicates a particular sort of status, as well as a particular sort of relationship you should have with the person bearing that title. In the case of gods, the title means the person is worthy of high honor, respect, and value; relationally, gods are worthy of worship, or celebration, praise, and deference.

From there, I ask myself a question - what things do I consider worthy of worship? Those things are my gods. The things I consider gods happen to be things that were considered gods by all of our ancestors (and that weird movement called contemporary Paganism that hearkens to our pasts), but that's just a happy coincidence. I see the gods in all things. I affirm everything is sacred and worthy of worship, whether or not I happen to particularly like it. The land is worthy of worship for without it I would not be. So too, with Lady Sol, whom my planet literally revolves around. Crow is worthy of worship, for I find inspiration upon Crow's blackened wings. Libraries are sacred temples of the Spirit of Learning, for I am a lover of knowledge and lore.

My gods are self-evident to the point that asking about evidence is something of an absurdity. Consequently, I get bored very quickly with that question and may do more than a few rollings of the eyes.

 

[Milton Platt]

God is the Creator of the Universe

His Creation is the best evidence

How is that evidence for a god?

 

[Milton Platt]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

Which god are you referring to?

 

[Milton Platt]

The thing in itself is proof of the thing. No need to look for clues.

What thing?

 

[PureX]

Our existence can be explained by natural means. No magic required.

All that can be explained is how we got to be the way we are. But we still have no idea at all WHY we are the way we are. WHY we are here at all. Or WHY ANYTHING ELSE exists. We know nothing of the origins of existence, nor of it's purpose. And I see no logical reason to accept a little bit of information about the process by which our physical nature has been defined as an explanation for our existence. Especially when we have been designed, it seems, by nature itself, to be curious, and to seek out such knowledge.

 

[PureX]

Does not what?

Doe not require at "first cause". By definition, God IS the "first cause"; the primary cause, and the only cause. The fact that we cannot understand this beyond our own questions does not negate the term, the mystery, or the concept.

But it does make it not evidence.

It's ALL "evidence". The question is, is it applicable, and is it convincing? And this is a subjective determination that each of us has to make for ourselves.

Clear inaccuracies and contradictions aren't easily interpreted away.

But being mythology, symbolism, and metaphorical literature, none of that matter.

 

[Milton Platt]

All that can be explained is how we got to be the way we are. But we still have no idea at all WHY we are the way we are. WHY we are here at all. Or WHY ANYTHING ELSE exists. We know nothing of the origins of existence, nor of it's purpose. And I see no logical reason to accept a little bit of information about the process by which our physical nature has been defined as an explanation for our existence. Especially when we have been designed, it seems, by nature itself, to be curious, and to seek out such knowledge.

There does not have to be a “why”.

 

[viole]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

I like a variant of the Cartesian argument for the existence of God. It is highly technical, but highly convincing. I am a strong atheist, but I have to admit I have problems to counter it.

It goes along this line where God says:

GOD: YOU don’t think, therefore I AM.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

God is the Creator of the Universe

His Creation is the best evidence

Do you include the Ebola virus and parasitic wasps in that?

Ciao

- viole