What verifiable evidence is there that god exists?

[Trailblazer]

OK, and since we can't know which of the three scenarios is the case, then none of them make any difference, it's meaningless and a waste of time to ponder any of them.

We cannot prove which one is the case but we can determine which one we believe is the case.

That is not a waste of time because one of them has to be true and that excludes the other two. If it is #1, that has major implications for our lives.

 

[lukethethird]

We cannot prove which one is the case but we can determine which one we believe is the case.

That is not a waste of time because one of them has to be true and that excludes the other two. If it is #1, that has major implications for our lives.

It is the way it is regardless of whatever we believe the case may be.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is the way it is regardless of whatever we believe the case may be.

What is "it?"

 

[lukethethird]

What is "it?"

The universe and the way everything works is the way it is regardless of what we believe the case might be as it pertains to so called Gods out there. Gods or no Gods, there are believers and there are skeptics whatever the answer may be.

 

[Trailblazer]

The universe and the way everything works is the way it is regardless of what we believe the case might be as it pertains to so called Gods out there. Gods or no Gods, there are believers and there are skeptics whatever the answer may be.

I can agree with that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The universe and the way everything works is the way it is regardless of what we believe the case might be as it pertains to so called Gods out there. Gods or no Gods, there are believers and there are skeptics whatever the answer may be.

I find even Scripture agrees that there are believers and there are skeptics as per 2 Peter 3:3-4
However, those skeptics or ridiculers will find what the answer may be, just Not to their liking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find even Scripture agrees that there are believers and there are skeptics as per 2 Peter 3:3-4
However, those skeptics or ridiculers will find what the answer may be, just Not to their liking.

That is merely a defensive verse and rather obvious. The Quran has the same sort of verses. It is not evidence for a God.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

True, there are three logical possibilities, so there are two other logical possibilities to pick from:

1. God sends Messengers
2. God does not communicate
3. God does not exist

4. God does not send messengers, but communicates directly
5. there are many gods, each responsible for different aspects of reality
6. It's not actually a god, it's a super-advanced alien
7. Earth is just a Science Fair project (a C minus at best) that nobody remembered to turn off.

These are equally logical with your #1.

Only #3 (that you listed) has the least level of assumptions.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I find even Scripture agrees that there are believers and there are skeptics as per 2 Peter 3:3-4
However, those skeptics or ridiculers will find what the answer may be, just Not to their liking.

Threats? Oh My.

If atheists believed your horrific threats of torture, at the hands of your terror-god?

They wouldn't be atheists, would they?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But that still leaves us with choosing options 1, 2 or 3. God either communicates or not and God either exists or not.

There are far more options than just your short list, actually...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is the way it is regardless of whatever we believe the case may be.

Citation Needed. You make a claim without any fact backing it.

 

[Trailblazer]

4. God does not send messengers, but communicates directly
5. there are many gods, each responsible for different aspects of reality
6. It's not actually a god, it's a super-advanced alien
7. Earth is just a Science Fair project (a C minus at best) that nobody remembered to turn off.

These are equally logical with your #1.

Only #3 (that you listed) has the least level of assumptions.

3. Is far more logical than 5, 6, or 7, which make no sense and have no evidence to back them up.

1. has evidence to back it up.
2. requires no evidence, just faith
3. does not require any evidence since it is the default

1. is the most difficult because we have to look at the evidence
2. is easier than 1 because it only requires faith
3. is easiest because it does not require any evidence

 

[Trailblazer]

There are far more options than just your short list, actually...

There are more options within those categories, yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3. Is far more logical than 5, 6, or 7, which make no sense and have no evidence to back them up.

1. has evidence to back it up.
2. requires no evidence, just faith
3. does not require any evidence since it is the default

1. is the most difficult because we have to look at the evidence
2. is easier that 1 because it only requires faith
3. is easiest because it does not require any evidence

You keep claiming that you have evidence but the only evidence that you post fails. What reliable evidence do you have? If you do not have any then your beliefs are not reasonable.

 

[Trailblazer]

You keep claiming that you have evidence but the only evidence that you post fails. What reliable evidence do you have? If you do not have any then your beliefs are not reasonable.

There is evidence. I do not have all the evidence but all the evidence is available for people to find and look at, after which time they can determine if it is reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence. I do not have all the evidence but all the evidence is available for people to find and look at, after which time they can determine if it is reliable.

If there is evidence then why can't you post it? Your inability to do so implies that there is no evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there is evidence then why can't you post it? Your inability to do so implies that there is no evidence.

That is kind of like asking, if you have evidence that physics is actually true, why can't you post it on a forum? The reason you can't is because the subject is too big and you would not know where to begin.

I can answer specific questions but I cannot post all the evidence. There is just too much evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, there are three logical possibilities, so there are two other logical possibilities to pick from:

1. God sends Messengers
2. God does not communicate
3. God does not exist

4. The god communicates, but not by messengers.

... and each of these possibilities is repeated for every god-claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is kind of like asking, if you have evidence that physics is actually true, why can't you post it on a forum? The reason you can't is because the subject is too big and you would not know where to begin.

I can answer specific questions but I cannot post all the evidence. There is just too much evidence.

No, we can repeatedly test the laws of physics. And so can others. The results are the same for the same experiments. Perhaps you do not understand the nature of evidence. I find that is a common problem among quite a few theists.

If there was "too much evidence" you could post at least some of it. No one is asking for all of the evidence. All that is being asked for is some reliable evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is evidence then why can't you post it? Your inability to do so implies that there is no evidence.

Except there is evidence for God. I freely admit this.

All "evidence" means is a fact that can be used, along with other facts, to support a conclusion.

For instance, if my conclusion is "I know that God exists because I saw him barge into my house and drink all my Diet Coke," then the fact I'm out of Diet Coke is a piece of evidence for the existence of God.

This certainly isn't compelling evidence, and we would need much more evidence to establish the conclusion, but it's still a fact that could be used with other potential facts to make the case for the conclusion, so it is evidence for God.

In that respect, there's plenty of evidence both for and against the existence of God.