Or perhaps more accurately, no evidence that you accept or that convinces you.
I have yet to have any evidence presented at all ...none, zip, as in total and complete absence of anything of any nature.
So I have not been able to even consider something that is claimed as evidence.
No one has ever said to me for example that god talks to them or they experienced a miracle that they attribute to God.
Having said this I agree that I would indeed demand a standard of evidence that I consider reasonable but I very much doubt that I will have to determine the quality of presented evidence as none is ever offerred.
If we think of 'God' as whatever performs the sort of metaphysical functions suggested by 'first cause', 'ultimate ground of being', 'source of cosmic order' and so on, then the existence of an existing, ordered and causally evolving reality would seem to be evidence that those metaphysical functions are indeed being performed, somehow, by something.
You assume there must be a something.
Perhaps the first place to start is to establish that there is indeed a something and offer evidence to support the notion of something.
Arguements for something are arguments from ignorance.
An eternal universe does not need something.
Can anyone show the universe is eternal or not?
Even the big bang suggests something before but that is speculation at this point.
A universe with a start does not need something to start it.
All we have is an understanding that we do not know...we do not know... which hardley offers foundation for a claim that "there must be a something".
I do think that they remain profound mysteries. They are exceedingly strong evidence (in my opinion) that science isn't even close to having all the answers.
Yes it is a mystery and speculation upon those mysteries is interesting but the problem starts here as folk speculate and then conclude their speculation is indeed reality.
It is not reality...it remains speculation.
Science can not manage these questions because of lack of evidence and observation that would enable rational assessment.
Science cant investigate speculation and happily admits that it can offer no input...it can only say what is a fair determination ...We dont know.
Some folk demand and must have an answer and to accept an answer other than "we dont know" does not offer them truth but turns speculation into a lie...to present speculation as a fact will always be a lie.
The huge collection of reports of miracles would certainly seem to be a body of evidence, even if we consider it bad evidence and are inclined to dismiss it.
Great we may have something we can test.
Select your best miracle...one will do.
Step one.
Look at our best one miracle.
Determine that it is in fact a miracle which would perhaps mean a situation where the physical laws we know and trust have somehow been suspended or changed for a specific moment such that observers must conclude the event was entirely un natural.
Perhaps a clear definition of a miracle is in order...but assume we can agree that we have a miracle...
Step two.
Determine why this miracle occurred.
Show a link between what it is claimed provided the miracle and the event claimed to be a miracle.
Saying we have a miracle therefore God did it does nothing for me. That is a mere unsupported claim.
If you claim God is involved then support that claim with something...anything...
And so often we are offerred a miracle and its because of God and yet believers fail to draw a conclusion that if God can interact on this occassion to help why is it he has been so selective.
So a soldier has a bullet shell enter his helmet and run around his head to exist leaving him unharmed..A miracle...isnt God wonderful..sure so why did he let millions upon millions die of bullet wounds...it does not add up.
One person is found alive in rubble of an earth quake after weeks alive...a miracle proving God...sure well if you have proof of Gods ability to help can you explain why he failed to save the thousands who died in the earth quake.
Saving thousands would get my attention.
But if atheists want to dismiss the evidence of miracles, they probably need to produce a better response than merely sneering them into oblivion.
No they dont.
If one makes a claim one needs to support the claim.
It is not encumbant upon an athiest to show why miracles are not acts of God.
If the claim is that miracles are the act of God that claim needs evidence in support by those making the claim not evidence to reject the claim by those who are unimpressed.
So there are great numbers of miracles...what a wonderful pool of events in which the claim is that God is involved so it should be no problem to prove God given so many events...so go ahead.
If anyone wants to prove God select a miracle and prove your point but dont expect anything more than ridicule if the presentation contains a childish demand "well prove me wrong".
So it would seem to me that there's abundant evidence for 'God'
No. If there was evidence you would be specific...name one thing..just one...
Reference to a collection of non specific events is not even a hint at evidence...not even a hint.
Something specific may be considered evidence good or bad but what you suggest does not cut it.
So we have a huge accumulation of evidence over a long period that must mean that the quality of evidence ranges from poor to excellent I expect.
So lets just take the best evidence available...say three or four..
even just the best one and start there.
How do you eat an elephant ..one little piece at a time.
So what can we start with...what is one little piece we can look at and ask if we should even bother to look at exhibit number two.
Certainly its the same with ufos...oh there are thouhdands of reports ..sure so lets look at the best one and see where that takes us.
Until we can establish the universe was created we can not introduce a creator and if we introduce a creator we need to establish the creator of the creator.
Without such a starting point everything on the matter is mere speculation and any claim that such speculation is truth without evidence is a lie irrespective of what the reality maybe.
The rest of Xel's post deleted since it was just a rant that doesn't require a thoughtful response
The whole post was a rant reflecting my frustration with the lack of support for all claims made by all religions both now and throughout history a frustration that could be eased if humans could shake off their dependance on unsupported superstition from the bronze age and enjoy the benefit of the enormous body of work enabling us to describe reality without unsupported speculation and the promotion of lies.
Religions appear to do good things but I say it is good people who do good things in spite of religion and good people deserve to live with truth even if that truth is the reasonable addmission that we probably will never know the truth.
Alex