Evidence that God is real

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 31, 2018.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I did that. I saw arguments for God. I didn't see evidence.

    To clarify the distinction:
    Argument: "All dogs are brown. Therefore your dog is brown."
    Evidence: "Here's a color photograph of your dog. It's brown."​

    Notice that the argument reaches the right conclusion even though the logic is wrong. That's why arguments alone are not reliable.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    I'm not sure how repeating that assertion makes it any more sensible? How did you (or Lane) come to the conclusion of a "transcendent, intelligent agent who creates universe at will" among the million and one (or more) possible alternatives? Especially considering, no evidence of such a being exists or can be shown to have created any universes? I'm assuming you (or Lane) can provide all the characteristics and traits of this being, where it resides, it's properties and explain why this being no longer reveals itself?

    I'll try to explain if you can explain what that even means? Perhaps, you (or Lane) can provide the verses from Scriptures where God reveals and explains the applicability of mathematics to his followers?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I know that arguments don't "reveal evidence". Arguments can use evidence.

    I know what evidence is. Belief is not evidence. Opinion is not evidence.

    "Of God" is not a useful distinction. You can not have a different kind of evidence "of God" than the kind of evidence we have of gravity or of evolution.

    "Looks like" is a better description of evidence. If we can all see it, it's evidence. If only some people can see it, it isn't.

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Isn’t there a difference between evidence and proof?

    I don’t think evidence has to be universally acceptable by everyone on earth to be sound and reasonable. Or to be true.

    To me... evidence = points to.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    How many people have to agree? Can everybody have his own personal evidence?

    I would call that interpretation of evidence, not evidence itself. The same evidence can suggest different possible conclusions but there has to be agreement about what the evidence is first.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  9. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    What exactly do you see that is evidence of God around you every single day?
     
  10. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Are you really willing to consider evidence for God?
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Feel free to propose better definitions.

    The bottom line is that theists have more than one problem:
    1. Does God exist at all?
    2. If He does, did He create anything.
    3. If He can create, can He go outside the laws of physics to do so?
    4. etc.

    Theists have a tendency to assume that everything follows from 1 but that isn't how it works. You need evidence for all of them.
     
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Yes.
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If the difference between God and the living entity is like the difference between the unlimitedly unlimited and the unlimitedly limited, there is no scope for "bringing God down to our level".
    Or to go by your material, if number 3 alone is correct, that is going to radically frame how we approach the other two concepts.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    You have that backwards. Number 3 comes after number 2 and number 2 comes after number 1. And number 1 happens to be the topic of this thread. When you get past the first hurdle, we can move on to the next.
     
  15. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes I agree, evidence is very important. But I do not see any problems with any of these.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    My point is that if number 3 is correct, that spells out a radical angle on 1 and 2.
    IOW if you are insisting on the first two being evidenced through physics, it is obvious you will never get there if the third one is a fact.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    It doesn't matter whether you see the problems or not. They're there. The fact that no theist in this thread has been able to provide evidence of God is a very big problem.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,003
    The above discussion did not "undercut a belief in God." It simply reduced the validity of one of the bits of evidence that theists have used to claim God is real i.e. that there could not be any life without God.

    This approach by theists - "God of the gaps" - is surely valid, but is also doomed to failure in the long term in most instances, since it relies upon science not advancing. It also makes for a pretty precarious position.

    "God makes the Sun rise and set!" - Nope. Turns out we orbit around the Sun, and spin at the same time.
    "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.' - Nope. Turns out that plain ol' physical laws regulate that.
    "God made man; he didn't come from monkeys!" - Nope. We know exactly how much DNA we share with our most recent common ancestors, who begat both humanity and chimpanzees.
    "I'll tell you why [religion] is not a scam. In my opinion, all right? Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in" - Nope. (Bill O'Reilly actually said this.)
    "Bananas are evidence that God exists" - Nope. (Ray Comfort) Turns out natural bananas are almost inedible.
    "There were no complex molecules on the Earth before we existed - God must have made them!" - Nope.

    What some other theists had to say about this approach:

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer - "How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

    Charles Alfred Coulson - "There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking."

     
  19. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I’m not so sure.

    It seems like your belief system constrains you. Only allows you to evaluate evidence in one simplistic way, perhaps through the blind faith of naturalism. You appear to be even closed-minded to me.

    Hopefully I am wrong, but that is the vibe I am getting from you.

    Sorry for that.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    That's just empty speculation. IF we determine that God exists, then we can try to figure out if He is "the Creator". Maybe He just watched it happening spontaneously. IF He is the Creator, then we can try to figure out if He had to bend any of the laws of the universe to do it. If it turns out that it can happen without bending any existing laws, then whether He exists or not becomes irrelevant to the topic of creation.
     
  21. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    Yes, please provide the evidence you see all around you every single day?
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Science works by methodological naturalism. That's the only way to filter out the different beliefs of different scientists who are Christians, Buddhists, atheists, etc.

    The closed minds are the ones who insist that there " must" be a God, even if there is no evidence.
     
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    You are evidence, not proof. The fact that you exist is evidence for the existence of God.
     

Share This Page