How can you have evidence for God?

[Norsefire]

Many atheists continually claim that God is not real because he is "undetectable" and "invisible"; ok, but how do you even expect to have evidence for God? How would you know you had it when you have it? Perhaps we already have evidence for God that we mistake as evidence for other things.

What type of evidence would you need? If there is a God and he does anything, it's not evidence for him, we'll just say it's nature.

 

[DeepThought]

Perhaps we already have evidence for God that we mistake as evidence for other things.

Go on then.

 

[davewhite04]

Evidence is relative to the person.

Lots of time seems to work for some
God works for others
Both works for others

 

[fadingCaptain]

How bout god make all the stars are go out one night and with a booming voice declare himself to the world and explain himself. That should probably just about do it. Plus it might clear up a lot of confusion and avoid a bunch of conflict and death.

What? He cannot do this because he is just a universal cause? Or maybe he is pure energy? Well, you aren't really talking about GOD now, are you?

 

[davewhite04]

Who is that directed to?

 

[Aerika]

Perhaps god could split a sea or ocean for us or cure every disease like Jesus did.

Then he went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every illness among the people

Why should we settle for less proof than the Bible asserts ?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Perhaps god could split a sea or ocean for us or cure every disease like Jesus did.

Why should we settle for less proof than the Bible asserts?

*************
M*W: Why? None of the miracles or happenings that are written in the bible can be proven as there is absolutely no evidence, not even antiquated, archeological evidence, to prove that these events occurred. That's why.

 

[spidergoat]

If you can't have evidence of it, why would anyone believe it exists?

 

[Aerika]

*************
M*W: Why? None of the miracles or happenings that are written in the bible can be proven as there is absolutely no evidence, not even antiquated, archeological evidence, to prove that these events occurred. That's why.

Perhaps if you had read my entire statement you wouldn't have had to ask.

What type of evidence would you need?

Perhaps god could split a sea or ocean for us or cure every disease like Jesus did. Why should we settle for less proof than the Bible asserts ?

 

[shaman_]

Many atheists continually claim that God is not real because he is "undetectable" and "invisible"; ok, but how do you even expect to have evidence for God? How would you know you had it when you have it? Perhaps we already have evidence for God that we mistake as evidence for other things.

Which god are you referring to? Why question the evidence for only one of them?

What type of evidence would you need? If there is a God and he does anything, it's not evidence for him, we'll just say it's nature.

Someone parting an ocean could hardly be called nature.

If the events described in the bible happened today you would turn a lot of atheists. Strangely enough that stuff doesn’t happen anymore.

However this line of reasoning is an attempt to shift some burden back to the non believers. In the uncomfortable position where they follow a deity for which there is no evidence, the theist (or even agnostic) challenges the atheists to name the acceptable evidence. In doing this it appears that the atheist has unreasonable ideas for what would be considered convincing evidence. What often follows is that there couldn’t possibly be evidence for god (even though we know he exists) so atheists are wrong to think that evidence matters.

Unfortunately, if you apply this faulty logic the same could also be said of every god and magical creature ever imagined. So are you going to believe in all of them?

Perhaps I should ask the Christians what evidence they would need to believe in Odin?

 

[KennyJC]

Many atheists continually claim that God is not real because he is "undetectable" and "invisible"; ok, but how do you even expect to have evidence for God? How would you know you had it when you have it? Perhaps we already have evidence for God that we mistake as evidence for other things.

What type of evidence would you need? If there is a God and he does anything, it's not evidence for him, we'll just say it's nature.

It's a tough gig to find evidence for something that exists only in the imaginations of humans.

 

[Norsefire]

Which god are you referring to? Why question the evidence for only one of them?

I am speaking of the core concept, again; yes, there are many "gods", but they all follow the same concept: a Creator. Therefore you could say they are all different faces (dependent of the different cultures) for the same concept.

Someone parting an ocean could hardly be called nature.

How do you know the seas didn't really part? It's illogical, naturally, but if we throw God into the equation, the seas parting is not so illogical.

However this line of reasoning is an attempt to shift some burden back to the non believers. In the uncomfortable position where they follow a deity for which there is no evidence, the theist (or even agnostic) challenges the atheists to name the acceptable evidence. In doing this it appears that the atheist has unreasonable ideas for what would be considered convincing evidence. What often follows is that there couldn’t possibly be evidence for god (even though we know he exists) so atheists are wrong to think that evidence matters.

It is not to shift a burden to anyone; it's simply suggesting that whether or not there is a god, how can you ever have evidence of him to know? As you said yourself, at the beginning of the universe things were so different you couldn't ascertain probabilities, how could you say god is illogical?

Nobody here is unreasonable; the reason? Again, as I said, I think creation and natural beginning are somewhat equally probable, with what I know.

The universe operates naturally (from what we can observe); however this falls short before it's creation. You can't use the "the universe operates naturally, so why suggest it's creation wasn't natural" argument really. The universe could be like a machine, but what created it, or how did this machine come to be? An autonomous machine. That isn't very illogical.

I'm simply saying, how do you know evidence for god isn't right under our nose, and we just can't see it?

And of course, we can't forget about my other idea (read my "are we following a path" thread in the religion subforum to learn more)

Unfortunately, if you apply this faulty logic the same could also be said of every god and magical creature ever imagined. So are you going to believe in all of them?

No, because there is no reason to. I'm 99% certain there are no unicorns.

However, you'll say "well it's like the same thing"

But I just don't think so. Unicorns aren't used to explain anything, and we've looked all over earth and have found no evidence for them. So, logically, we can rule out their existence.

I'm sure in the future with genetic engineering, we'll have "unicorns" (horned horses), but not now.

God, on the other hand, deals with what we Humans know to be true: intent, and willpower; it's also used as an explanation for the beginning of the universe (deism). It's not the same type of thing.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Many atheists continually claim that God is not real because he is "undetectable" and "invisible";

Wrong. To say God is undetectable and invisible is like saying He exists.

The main reason for being undetectable and invisible as you call it is that God is not here. You can still believe God exists but you'll have to be satisfied that you can't go any further with it. The trick is not to get too caught up in what the believers who speculate or philosophize about the undetectable invisible God say because guesswork is not proof or could it ever be provable and, as you can see, that is the case.

 

[scorpius]

What type of evidence would you need? If there is a God and he does anything, it's not evidence for him, we'll just say it's nature.

thats easy,the bible says:

whatever one asks for in prayer shall be given to them,
if that worked 100% of the time it would be pretty damn good evidence imo.

 

[John99]

Many atheists continually claim that God is not real because he is "undetectable" and "invisible"; ok, but how do you even expect to have evidence for God? How would you know you had it when you have it? Perhaps we already have evidence for God that we mistake as evidence for other things.

What type of evidence would you need? If there is a God and he does anything, it's not evidence for him, we'll just say it's nature.

WOW. This could take years to figure out. The thing of it all that gets me is there had to be a beginning to the universe. What about a beginning for God?

An Atheist will say that the universe always existed, the theist will say that it was created because everything has a beginning. If the theist will claim it was God then when did God begin? If it is impossible for solar systems\space to have always existed then how or why would God have?

:scratchin:

I am a natural Agnostic, some are naturally theist. I believe that most Agnostics lean closer to theism and tbh Atheism is foreign to my being.

 

[shaman_]

I am speaking of the core concept, again; yes, there are many "gods", but they all follow the same concept: a Creator. Therefore you could say they are all different faces (dependent of the different cultures) for the same concept.

No you are shoehorning ideas so they fit into a nice neat theory. You have religions which have fundamental contradictions. There were good gods, evil ones, animal spirits. Gods killed each other and gods mated with each other. The most popular religions today have only one god, who may have split himself into three.

The contradictions are a problem for those who follow one religion. They demonstrate that some (or maybe all) of these gods have been invented. You are removing the identity of your creator and trying to distance yourself from these stories but you are still talking about an another entity for which there is no evidence.

There were many gods which have nothing to do with creation.

To classify them as different faces of the same concept is really, really stretching it.

How do you know the seas didn't really part? It's illogical, naturally, but if we throw God into the equation, the seas parting is not so illogical.

When you throw the magic sky god, who can do the impossible, into the equation then logic goes completely out the window. If anything is possible logic cannot be relied on.

The seas may have parted. My point is that an ocean being parted today would convince many atheists.

It is not to shift a burden to anyone; it's simply suggesting that whether or not there is a god, how can you ever have evidence of him to know? As you said yourself, at the beginning of the universe things were so different you couldn't ascertain probabilities, how could you say god is illogical?

Lots of things are logical. God is exactly as logical as fairies. He/they may exist.

Nobody here is unreasonable; the reason? Again, as I said, I think creation and natural beginning are somewhat equally probable, with what I know.

The universe operates naturally (from what we can observe); however this falls short before it's creation. You can't use the "the universe operates naturally, so why suggest it's creation wasn't natural" argument really. The universe could be like a machine, but what created it, or how did this machine come to be? An autonomous machine. That isn't very illogical.

Once again, lots of things are logical but complete fantasy. You can’t consider everything that could be considered ‘logical’ (which is basically everything when considering the power needed to create the universe) as likely. Look for evidence and until then it is unknown.

While interesting to think about, it is just speculation. Give me a reason to believe that the universe was created.

I'm simply saying, how do you know evidence for god isn't right under our nose, and we just can't see it?

Show me this evidence and I will happily believe, until then I will not.

And of course, we can't forget about my other idea (read my "are we following a path" thread in the religion subforum to learn more)

No, because there is no reason to. I'm 99% certain there are no unicorns.

How do you know that the evidence isn’t right under your nose? Okay I don't think I’m being clever here I am just pointing out that they are just as logical and have just much evidence as the gods.

However, you'll say "well it's like the same thing"

But I just don't think so. Unicorns aren't used to explain anything, .

What difference does it make if they are used to explain something? Gremlins were always blamed when machinery broke down and kobolds were responsible when things went missing. It doesn’t make them more likely than unicorns.

and we've looked all over earth and have found no evidence for them. So, logically, we can rule out their existence.

So if you haven’t found evidence after a lot of looking you can rule out their existence? Interesting that you would say that.

You have to keep in mind that unicorns were magical and can go invisible (like god) whenever they like. Does this sound like convenient post hoc reasoning? It certainly might but the same is used for gremlins, gods and unicorns.

 

[rjr6]

Proof of God. Give yourself parameters of "proof of God", without invoking religous beliefs (for this exercise) and see what you come up with.
This "proof" exists right in front of you.

Prayer and miracles are aspects of God, not what He is.

Miracle=supernatural

supernatural=events counter to physical laws of reality.

reality=founded in fundamental laws

fundamental laws=unexplained.

So a miracle would be something counter to an unexplained reality?

Huh?

People want a new miracle? And then what? What would they then have to offer God? Obedience? Because he proves to you that He is ommipotent? Is that how valued relationships are formed?

The very mindset of "wanting" a miracle keeps a person from them.

 

[mike47]

Many atheists continually claim that God is not real because he is "undetectable" and "invisible"; ok, but how do you even expect to have evidence for God? How would you know you had it when you have it? Perhaps we already have evidence for God that we mistake as evidence for other things.

What type of evidence would you need? If there is a God and he does anything, it's not evidence for him, we'll just say it's nature.

The problem with a god or gods is that science does not give us any clue at all . Also religion makes no sense in this aspect . Religion is mythology .
The issue if we go to Zero time and come forward the question that must be asked is : Who created this god and how can something starting from nothing create anything at all let alone all this huge , huge , huge universe and beyond . The whole issue just does not make sense at all .

 

[spidergoat]

Science does give us clues. The God Hypothesis can be treated like any other scientific hypothesis. Does it make testable predictions? Does it explain something that has no plausable naturalistic explanation? Does it fit the evidence? I think you will find it does not.

 

[Cris]

How can you have evidence for God?

How about if he announces himself through perhaps some form of planetary wide instant and visible communication and then goes on to demonstrate incredible feats of accomplishment that only a god could do. Perhaps like placing an atmosphere on Mars, and transporting the entire world population there so we could see it.

Or perhaps healing every sick person in the world instantly making every hospital empty and redundant in a single instant.

The list is endless for the things an apparent all powerful god could achieve.

Instead we have vague, indirect, personal testimony, that we can't distinguish from delusion as the only evidence that such a being might exist. Feels kinda weak, right?