Suddenly, one or more of the physical senses begins to apprehend a movement or a crash or an aroma. Something has become evident to the senses, and that makes it evidence, evidence being the noun form of the adjective evident. The brain then automatically begins telling us what this apprehension says about our reality and how we feel about it. This is
evidence becoming
evidence of - the interpretation stage. I hear a sound. Next, I recognize it as the doorbell. Next I interpret to mean that somebody is at the door summoning me. I open the door and see a face. The brain tells me whose based on prior experience and memory. It's the landlord. The brain reminds me that the rent is due, then that I don't have the money, and then tells me how to feel about that - a little apprehensive, perhaps. Then come the tentative predictions of what comes next. The formal definition of evidence states that it is knowledge that makes a given proposition more or less likely to be the case about reality (evidence for and evidence against).
what is Evidence of God. After this OP there will be no need for anyone to demand evidence, as it will have been provided.
Evidence of God would be an apprehension best understood as a manifestation of a supernatural sentient agent. The Baha'i offer the biography and words of people claiming to be channeling a god as defined here. You look at those words and see a god. I look at them and see words anybody could have written. I am certain that I could write words that you could not distinguish from those you think come from a god. So could many others, it seems.
Others offer different evidence, but it is also not evidence of a god, but rather, evidence that people believe in such a thing and hope to make others believe the same. Some point to reality and say, see - there's God. They point to a living cell. One RF poster used to like to post galleries of pretty pictures of flowers and animals as evidence of a god. Some claim that moral intuitions and moral behavior require that a god exist for that to be possible. Then come the logical arguments which include some self-proclaimed proofs from the Middle Ages as well as the fine tuning argument already mentioned in this thread.
None of these convince the competent critical thinker, even those who call themselves theists. They understand the evidence doesn't support their belief. Some have said so on these threads. If they believe, it is by faith, not through evidence.
Critical thinking can be understood as the science of evaluating evidence using reason to arrive at sound conclusions about what is true, what actually exists and can be found. We all do it to some degree every hour of every day, as when we correctly interpret the significance of a red traffic signal, but to do it well in all settings is an acquired skill, one typically only developed through a university education, and even then, most graduates are unfamiliar with many of the logical fallacies.
Incidentally, who is asking you for evidence of gods? The request, if made, is a rhetorical device by somebody who knows that you have no evidence that would convince him. How could you if he lives in the same world and has eyes and an analytical mind? If you had it, he would already have it, too. I've gotten out of the habit of asking that rhetorical device and just making my position plainly and directly - you don't have evidence for your beliefs that would convince me.
If they disagree, they can offer something and I can tell them why it doesn't support their belief as I just did regarding messages from self-proclaimed messengers of an alleged god. You needn't show me any more words from your book. Asking for evidence rhetorically just gets one another boatload of quotations in fey language to evoke otherworldliness with a lot of ye's and thou hasts -
deepities, as Dennett calls such vapid pronouncements
God provides the Messenger, the Revelation and the Word to each and every individual to be the judge of that evidence, which we have to pursue individually.
Done. What else do you have?
That is the proof God gives, the signs of that proof are found in all of creation, in many varied ways.
Here's where a better understanding of logical fallacy would serve you. This is a circular argument. You wouldn't make it or believe it if you understood that. You assume what you're trying to prove. Change those words and make them fallacy-free: "These are the signs (evidence) that we interpret as evidence of a god" rather than "God gave us these signs of Himself"
The Word of God becomes the standard required for humanity to implement in their daily lives, it makes us, or breaks us, it is creative, not fictional.
The evidence contradicts you. Man's greatest progress comes whenever he puts his gods aside and turns to his own senses and mind for answers. That's true on a large scale as with the Enlightenment, which catapulted man from the intellectual dungeons of the Middle Ages to modernity, as well as an individual level. That describes my personal journey out of religion to an atheistic, humanistic worldview. That was a winner. I have navigated reality as if it were godless, and arrived at my desired destination - a state of wellbeing, both hedonic (comfort) and eudaimonic (purpose).
You have a pretty tough sell trying to convince somebody with such experience that he made a mistake and to return to "God" as his standard. What I see on these threads is the price some pay for that choice. Yes, it makes or breaks them. I see a lot of breakage. I see posters aimlessly wandering the halls of the forum in defense of their beliefs, starting thread after thread arguing for gods or against atheists or science (does anybody else use the word scientism?).
