• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence of God's/Gods' existence

Renji

Renji

Well-Known Member
Well, Hitchens said that "What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence". I'm not here to say that "No, you're wrong" or " God do exist and I have an evidence". What just made me started this thread is this: For those who think like Hitchens, or let's say that those of you here who's searching for a concrete evidence in order to believe that a Supreme Being really does exist, assuming that there is or there can be an evidence which will prove that a god(s) do exist, what exactly are you going to do with that evidence? As Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins) said in the movie The Rite: "You know, the interesting thing about sceptics, is that we're always looking for proof... the question is, what on earth would we ever do if we found it?"
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Lawrence said:
Well, Hitchens said that "What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence". I'm not here to say that "No, you're wrong" or " God do exist and I have an evidence". What just made me started this thread is this: For those who think like Hitchens, or let's say that those of you here who's searching for a concrete evidence in order to believe that a Supreme Being really does exist, assuming that there is or there can be an evidence which will prove that a god(s) do exist, what exactly are you going to do with that evidence? As Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins) said in the movie The Rite: "You know, the interesting thing about sceptics, is that we're always looking for proof... the question is, what on earth would we ever do if we found it?"
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with the word evidence is that evidence is defined simply as "that which causes one to believe".

There is absolutely nothing in the definition of the word evidence to indicate that the evidence has to be true or even that it has to be logical or reasonable.

"I believe that Mars is populated by little green men."
What is your evidence?
"I watched the movie 'Mars Attacks.'"

If the movie 'Mars Attacks' is what convinced them that Mars is populated with little green men, then that is, by the very definition of the word evidence, evidence.
 
Renji

Renji

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
The biggest problem with the word evidence is that evidence is defined simply as "that which causes one to believe".

There is absolutely nothing in the definition of the word evidence to indicate that the evidence has to be true or even that it has to be logical or reasonable.
"I believe that Mars is populated by little green men."
What is your evidence?
"I watched the movie 'Mars Attacks.'"

If the movie 'Mars Attacks' is what convinced them that Mars is populated with little green men, then that is, by the very definition of the word evidence, evidence.
Click to expand...

So then, let's say that it's a concrete/substantial evidence to be specific then... When there's an evidence like that that could "prove" that God do exists, what will you do? Just go and say "Okay, there is a god." and that's it? :D That's what I'm asking in the OP.
 
Zoe Doidge

Zoe Doidge

Basically a Goddess
Lawrence said:
the question is, what on earth would we ever do if we found it?"
Click to expand...

Personally I'd alter my stance from weak atheist to a theist, albeit as it stands one that doesn't like her creator very much.

That's completely assuming that Monotheism is the way to go.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Lawrence said:
So then, let's say that it's a concrete/substantial evidence to be specific then... When there's an evidence like that that could "prove" that God do exists, what will you do? Just go and say "Okay, there is a god." and that's it? :D That's what I'm asking in the OP.
Click to expand...
if god is ever 'proven' to my satisfaction, then that is pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

I do not feel any obligations to any one or any thing that is oblivious to my very existence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Renji

Renji

Well-Known Member
Zoe Doidge said:
Personally I'd alter my stance from weak atheist to a theist, albeit as it stands one that doesn't like her creator very much.

That's completely assuming that Monotheism is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps, the next question would be, what is the need for conversion if ever that happens? Wouldn't it be difficult for you to alter such stance?
 
Zoe Doidge

Zoe Doidge

Basically a Goddess
Lawrence said:
Then perhaps, the next question would be, what is the need for conversion if ever that happens? Wouldn't it be difficult for you to alter such stance?
Click to expand...

There would be no need for conversion if Gods existence could be proven, at all. As for altering my stance, not really no. It might require reinterpreting other things but simply accepting proof for what it is is not difficult.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Lawrence said:
Then perhaps, the next question would be, what is the need for conversion if ever that happens? Wouldn't it be difficult for you to alter such stance?
Click to expand...


which brings up a good question.

if there was evidence of a deity, "which deity" was found to exist would play a role in how people converted to a given religion.

No longer would there be alomost 40,000 different churches, 43 sects of islam, or any of the other offshoots.


alter what I believe, sure.


Im sure that will never happen and im 100% positive all deities are man made and there is no such universal entity or plural that are gere just to comfort humanity in hard times and death.
 
Photonic

Photonic

Ad astra!
Mestemia said:
The biggest problem with the word evidence is that evidence is defined simply as "that which causes one to believe".

There is absolutely nothing in the definition of the word evidence to indicate that the evidence has to be true or even that it has to be logical or reasonable.

"I believe that Mars is populated by little green men."
What is your evidence?
"I watched the movie 'Mars Attacks.'"

If the movie 'Mars Attacks' is what convinced them that Mars is populated with little green men, then that is, by the very definition of the word evidence, evidence.
Click to expand...
Which is why I specifically say empirical evidence.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
which brings up a good question.
..im 100% positive all deities are man made and there is no such universal entity
Click to expand...

Are you still in your "outhouse" :)

Mmm .. so the above is "what you believe" ( and you are wrong, sir! ) .. and you're an atheist
[ it wasn't hard to work out ;) ]
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Mestemia said:
The biggest problem with the word evidence is that evidence is defined simply as "that which causes one to believe".

There is absolutely nothing in the definition of the word evidence to indicate that the evidence has to be true or even that it has to be logical or reasonable.

"I believe that Mars is populated by little green men."
What is your evidence?
"I watched the movie 'Mars Attacks.'"

If the movie 'Mars Attacks' is what convinced them that Mars is populated with little green men, then that is, by the very definition of the word evidence, evidence.
Click to expand...

Individuals seem to have an arbitrary level of acceptable credibility when it comes to evidence. If one already believes in a God of some type they more likely to have a lower threshold of credibility for "evidence" that supports their belief. Someone who holds a disbelief will have a higher level. In some cases, disbelief will make that level so high as to be impossible to meet.

I generally try to set an admittedly arbitrary level of credibility for myself. Usually personal experience holds the highest level. Second, someone who's expertise I've, through personal experience, have come to trust. Third, someone with credentials who expertise is publicly recognized. Forth, someone I personally know and consider trustworthy. Beyond that I accept as unverified claims. Something that needs further support to before considering trustworthy.

Still I have my beliefs which take a higher level of credible "evidence" before I'll willingly let go of the belief. It's just the way it is and I suspect most deal with evidence in a similar fashion.

Not perfect but it works well enough to get by in life.
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Kilgore Trout said:
I find it interesting that anyone would see changing a stance due to new information as difficult.
Click to expand...

Depends on how much certainty an individuals places in something they already accept as true.

Like someone who is certain no deities exist. It would take a high level of what they consider credible evidence to convince them to accept otherwise.

Better IMO not to be absolutely certain of anything. Just differing levels of certitude. What I've seen and done for myself gets pretty high on my level of certainty but never 100%.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
muhammad_isa said:
Are you still in your "outhouse" :)

Mmm .. so the above is "what you believe" ( and you are wrong, sir! ) .. and you're an atheist
[ it wasn't hard to work out ;) ]
Click to expand...


When its knowledge its not a belief. :yes:

If im wrong please show me where and then why. :angel2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top