Evidence that God is real

Jan Ardena said:
I told you to google WLC's evidence for God.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jan Ardena said:
​

It makes a lot of sense. If the universe, with all it's laws, time, bit, bobs, etc is contingent, then it stands to reason that, that it is contingent to a transcendent, intelligent agent, who creates universes at will.
Click to expand...

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?

How do you explain the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?
Or, which explanation do you lean toward?

jan.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jan Ardena said:
How do you know those arguments don't reveal evidence of God?
Click to expand...
I know that arguments don't "reveal evidence". Arguments can use evidence.

Do you know what evidence of God, is, or looks like?
Click to expand...
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.
​
 
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:
SetiAlpha6 said:
I don’t think evidence has to be universally acceptable by everyone on earth to be sound and reasonable. Or to be true.
Click to expand...
How many people have to agree? Can everybody have his own personal evidence?

To me... evidence = points to.
Click to expand...
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:
SetiAlpha6 said:
I think I might have to disagree with part of this, perhaps just the terms and definitions of some of the words we are using.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sideshowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Musika said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sideshowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, evidence is very important. But I do not see any problems with any of these.
 
sideshowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Yes I agree, evidence is very important. But I do not see any problems with any of these.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Musika said:
Bridging an incomplete empirical claim with belief for the sake of undercutting a belief in God seems to run contrary to a great atheistic argument.
Click to expand...
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."
​
 
sideshowbob said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Musika said:
My point is that if number 3 is correct, that spells out a radical angle on 1 and 2.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top