If God exists then God must provide evidence on this thread!

[Animavore]

I have a mood ring.

It dilates when I'm happy and tightens when I'm angry.

[FBM]

I have a mood ring.

It dilates when I'm happy and tightens when I'm angry.

The rest of us call that an anal sphincter.

[Bruce Burleson]

Evidence does not have to be conclusive. A piece of evidence might be interpreted in more than one way. If you are looking for evidence of God's existence, you might be confronted with evidence that is consistent with more than one conclusion. For example, muddy shoe prints on the carpet could be evidence that someone with muddy shoes walked across the carpet, but it could also be evidence that someone placed mud on the carpet in such a way as to purposefully make it look like someone with muddy shoes walked across the carpet. The evidence by itself is inconclusive, and could point to more than one thing. Occam's Razor doesn't help you, since it is ultimately impossible to decide what really happened. You would have to say that one scenario is as likely as another.

With this in mind, the following evidence is consistent with the existence of God, but not conclusive:

1) There is something rather than nothing;
2) There is life rather than only non-life;
3) There are rational, conscious beings;
4) The universe is capable of being understood by rational, conscious beings;
5) There are conditions in the universe that, if only slightly changed, would make life as we know it impossible;
6) There are millions of people who sense the presence of God in some form;
7) There are many anecdotal reports of answered prayer;

That's a start. None of these things conclusively prove the existence of God, but they are consistent with the existence of God, and therefore count as "some evidence." You may not be personally convinced by the evidence, but you didn't ask for convincing, conclusive evidence. You only asked for evidence.

Now, we do not know why there is something rather than nothing. It could be that "something" in this universe requires the existence of a preexistent creator. So it's kinda hard to say that the above is no evidence of God. You may not really know what you are looking at. So, the evidence listed above is just as likely to point to the existence of God as it is to point to the non-existence of God, since it is impossible to say that any of the above MUST arise in the absence of a creator. The most we can say is that maybe it can occur without a creator, maybe it can't - 50-50.

[roter-kaiser]

I'm going to speak on god's behalf.

Shut the fuck up and believe.

That's exactly what I was told all the time when I went to church in my previous life.

My dad even has a book that basically deals wants to get this message across. It's title is "How to defend yourself against atheist arguments" Makes interesting reading

[Atheist-Lite]

Belief is not a credible criteria. There must be evidence. There isn't any way I'm going to settle for less. Produce yourself God? This is the thread dedicated to your manifestation. Maybe do some of the scrawl that you do? Just a little?

[FBM]

...The evidence by itself is inconclusive, and could point to more than one thing. Occam's Razor doesn't help you, since it is ultimately impossible to decide what really happened. You would have to say that one scenario is as likely as another.

So why choose the Judeo-Christian god over Zeus, Apollo and the lot, not to mention the many thousands of other scenarios that have been posited over the millenia?

With this in mind, the following evidence is consistent with the existence of God, but not conclusive:

1) There is something rather than nothing;
2) There is life rather than only non-life;
3) There are rational, conscious beings;
4) The universe is capable of being understood by rational, conscious beings;
5) There are conditions in the universe that, if only slightly changed, would make life as we know it impossible;
6) There are millions of people who sense the presence of God in some form;
7) There are many anecdotal reports of answered prayer;

That's a start. None of these things conclusively prove the existence of God, but they are consistent with the existence of God, and therefore count as "some evidence." You may not be personally convinced by the evidence, but you didn't ask for convincing, conclusive evidence. You only asked for evidence.

Those things are only evidence for themselves. They don't point to anything except a vivid imagination. What's at issue is not the evidence itself. We experience phenomena. What's at issue is the way the evidence/phenomena are interpreted. The rational-scientific approach is superior only because it produces superior results, not absolute certainty. That is, there may be a slim chance that there's a divine creator behind all this, but the odds against it, based on the observed phenomena, are so great as to be negligible. I'm not knocking you for your faith-based choice; just explaining why I dropped religion and took another route towards understanding the way things really are.

Now, we do not know why there is something rather than nothing. It could be that "something" in this universe requires the existence of a preexistent creator. So it's kinda hard to say that the above is no evidence of God. You may not really know what you are looking at. So, the evidence listed above is just as likely to point to the existence of God as it is to point to the non-existence of God, since it is impossible to say that any of the above MUST arise in the absence of a creator. The most we can say is that maybe it can occur without a creator, maybe it can't - 50-50.

"Evidence" that points to more than one possible explanation is not evidence for anything beyond its own existence. It's useless data. If you start with the assumption of a diety and work backwards to collect "evidence" for it, you can always stack it in a way that satisfies yourself and other believers. If, however, you take the rational-scientific approach, you first start with a question, then collect data, test it when possible, and only then propose a theory based on what the data suggests as the most likely. A faith-based approach starts with its favored answer; science starts with an admission of ignorance. I like the latter approach better. There's humility built into it.

[surreptitious57]

How many times do I have to explain this - your brain capacity is insufficient to contemplate my existence through the process of reason. This is why I gave you faith, so that you would accept me unconditionally. I much preferred it in the old days when everyone believed in me and no one doubted it. I would urge you to read my bestseller where all the answers to your questions will be found. But please ignore the contradictions and paradoxes - they are not meant to be challenged. Just accept verbatim everything you read. Question nothing. Just like all my followers of whom there are a hell of a lot more than you.

[charlou]

How many times do I have to explain this - your brain capacity is insufficient to contemplate my existence through the process of reason. This is why I gave you faith, so that you would accept me unconditionally. I much preferred it in the old days when everyone believed in me and no one doubted it. I would urge you to read my bestseller where all the answers to your questions will be found. But please ignore the contradictions and paradoxes - they are not meant to be challenged. Just accept verbatim everything you read. Question nothing. Just like all my followers of whom there are a hell of a lot more than you.

Parody .. yep, seen it all .. especially from the real McCoy, the twats who don't even realise they're a parody of humanity. Hella yeah.

[Tero]

It does not work that way. I asked god the same thing in 1970*. He did not respond, he is still testing my weak faith in him, making such demands.

*he was allowed to use any means to communicate (burning bush would have been neat) , he had not invented Internet yet. He gave that job to Al Gore later.

[Bruce Burleson]

So why choose the Judeo-Christian god over Zeus, Apollo and the lot, not to mention the many thousands of other scenarios that have been posited over the millenia?

The only reason to do this is if the believer has had some personal, subjective experience of Jesus but not of Zeus & Co. I believe you exist because I have had some (admittedly very little) experience of you. But it's enough for me to conclude that FBM exists, as opposed to XYZQRST.07&. I have no experience of the latter.

Those things are only evidence for themselves. They don't point to anything except a vivid imagination. What's at issue is not the evidence itself. We experience phenomena. What's at issue is the way the evidence/phenomena are interpreted. The rational-scientific approach is superior only because it produces superior results, not absolute certainty. That is, there may be a slim chance that there's a divine creator behind all this, but the odds against it, based on the observed phenomena, are so great as to be negligible. I'm not knocking you for your faith-based choice; just explaining why I dropped religion and took another route towards understanding the way things really are.

I'm not knocking the scientific approach, either. But you have no basis for saying that there is a "slim chance that there's a divine creator behind all this." The chances of there being a creator and there being no creator are equal, since we don't know what is there. There is no basis for assigning probabilities in any different ratio than 50-50. The thing that might push it over 50% for the individual is personal experience. I had no idea that you existed until I experienced your post. Now I'm more than 50% convinced that you do exist.

"Evidence" that points to more than one possible explanation is not evidence for anything beyond its own existence. It's useless data. If you start with the assumption of a diety and work backwards to collect "evidence" for it, you can always stack it in a way that satisfies yourself and other believers. If, however, you take the rational-scientific approach, you first start with a question, then collect data, test it when possible, and only then propose a theory based on what the data suggests as the most likely. A faith-based approach starts with its favored answer; science starts with an admission of ignorance. I like the latter approach better. There's humility built into it.

When police investigate a crime scene, they look for possible scenarios that will explain the evidence. One possible scenario that explains the evidence is the existence of a creator. Then, if there is some experience that pushes it past "maybe yes, maybe no", then you have a preponderance of the evidence. For individuals who have experienced something that they interpret to be divine, there is sufficient evidence to form the basis of a belief. Others may not see it that way, but for the individual, it is sufficient.

Furthermore, when you have a substantial amount of evidence that could point to more than one conclusion, the very weight of all the evidence consistent with a particular conclusion constitutes "some evidence," even if it could be said that such evidence is also consistent with another conclusion.

[Azathoth]

[borealis]

Oh my God!
It fits ass perfectly, so it must be designed!

Tell everybody! God is real!

[BrettA]

Oh my God!
It fits ass perfectly, so it must be designed!

Tell everybody! God is real a peel!

Fixed...