What Is The Evidence For And Against The Existence Of God?

[DavidLeon]

What is the evidence for the nonexistence of God and is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?

God in this case refers exclusively to Jehovah as creator of the heavens and earth. A supernatural being.

Guidelines for this debate: C&A guidelines, Wikipedia: Evidence of Absence and Argument From Ignorance.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Evidence for the existence of God..

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Contingency
3. The Argument from Consciousness
4. The Argument from Design (focusing on entropy)
5. The Argument from the Origin of Language
6. The Modal Ontological Argument

None of this is evidence. These are merely arguments.

When you order a pizza to be delivered to your crib, and the pizza man knocks at the door and hands you your box of pizza, do you say "I ordered a pizza, and what you gave me is a box of pizza"??

Dude, the pizza is instead of the box. Open the box, and there is your pizza.

Those arguments are based on evidence. Unpack the argument, and you will find your evidence. Obviously.

The fact that if a God existed, then we would have more than arguments for her.

The fact that if God didn't exist, then we wouldn't be here to argue about evidences for/against his existence.

[Diagoras]

So, I guess all of the people in criminal history who've committed the "perfect crimes" for not leaving a single shred of evidence at the crime scene; I guess they didn't commit the crime.

Non sequitur.

Can you point to a crime that has definitely been committed, but has zero evidence for it? That means no dead body, no missing artwork, etc. The fact that someone has determined a crime to have happened, suggests that there has been at least one piece of evidence to support that determination.

So, dinosaurs did not exist until fossils of them were found?

Only partly correct. The concept of dinosaurs did not exist until physical evidence supporting the hypothesis of various now-extinct animals having existed millions of years ago was found.

When we have little or no evidence for something (be it a criminal, dinosaur, unicorn or god), we can't make claims about them with any certainty. If we search for, and find new evidence, then subsequent claims may be made with more confidence. However, if we search for, but find no new evidence, then our claims have to be adjusted accordingly.

[Diagoras]

The fact that if God didn't exist, then we wouldn't be here to argue about evidences for/against his existence.

This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. I suggest you reframe your argument.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The fact that if God didn't exist, then we wouldn't be here to argue about evidences for/against his existence.

This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. I suggest you reframe your argument.

No, I don't. Why? Because I based the statement on what I believe to be sound/valid arguments backed by solid fire-proof pieces of evidences...which is exactly what the opposing side DOESN'T HAVE.

[unknown soldier]

When you order a pizza to be delivered to your crib, and the pizza man knocks at the door and hands you your box of pizza, do you say "I ordered a pizza, and what you gave me is a box of pizza"??

No. I'd expect him to deliver a pizza. If he just talked about my pizza, then I'd demand my money back.

What a good idea! When Christians fail to deliver, then we should ask for our money back.

Dude, the pizza is instead of the box. Open the box, and there is your pizza.

OK. I looked "inside of the box." There was no pizza. Am I supposed to be so stupid as to believe that there's still a pizza in there? Should I have "faith" in the pizza guy who never delivers?

Those arguments are based on evidence. Unpack the argument, and you will find your evidence. Obviously.

Most of the arguments for God are a priori--based purely on reason. There is no substance at all to them. The apologist sits back in his chair, thinks up reasons for God, then tells everybody hoping they won't notice that he has no God.

The fact that if God didn't exist, then we wouldn't be here to argue about evidences for/against his existence.

God just can't get his PR right. If people couldn't agree that I exist, then I'd definitely look into it!

[We_Are_VENOM]

When you order a pizza to be delivered to your crib, and the pizza man knocks at the door and hands you your box of pizza, do you say "I ordered a pizza, and what you gave me is a box of pizza"??

No. I'd expect him to deliver a pizza. If he just talked about my pizza, then I'd demand my money back.

You have to get to the pizza, you open the box. In order to get to the evidence for God, you unpack the argument.

What a good idea! When Christians fail to deliver, then we should ask for our money back.

Well in that case, atheism fails to deliver, so I'd like my money back.

OK. I looked "inside of the box." There was no pizza. Am I supposed to be so stupid as to believe that there's still a pizza in there? Should I have "faith" in the pizza guy who never delivers?

Well, I am the pizza man and I say that there is a pizza inside the box. So apparently, what you see/don't see is entirely different from what I see/don't see.

So one of our perceptions doesn't correspond to reality.

Most of the arguments for God are a priori--based purely on reason. There is no substance at all to them. The apologist sits back in his chair, thinks up reasons for God, then tells everybody hoping they won't notice that he has no God.

Sure, a little bit of reason (logic), a little bit of science (cosmology), a little bit of mathematics (against infinity), and a little bit of history (Historicity of Jesus).

So, all grounds are covered here.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Can you point to a crime that has definitely been committed, but has zero evidence for it?
That means no dead body, no missing artwork, etc. The fact that someone has determined a crime to have happened, suggests that there has been at least one piece of evidence to support that determination.

Um, not so fast. The statement of contention was along the lines of "God doesn't exist precisely because there isn't any evidence that he does exist", and that is simply not true.

There is no evidence that there a homeless man living in my basement, but does it follows that therefore, there is no homeless man living in my basement? No, it doesn't.

Text book non sequitur.

So, dinosaurs did not exist until fossils of them were found?

Only partly correct. The concept of dinosaurs did not exist until physical evidence supporting the hypothesis of various now-extinct animals having existed millions of years ago was found.

But that isn't what the poster said. I repeat, the poster said that the lack of evidence FOR the existence of God is on its own merit enough evidence AGAINST the existence of God.

Fallacious statement.

When we have little or no evidence for something (be it a criminal, dinosaur, unicorn or god), we can't make claims about them with any certainty. If we search for, and find new evidence, then subsequent claims may be made with more confidence. However, if we search for, but find no new evidence, then our claims have to be adjusted accordingly.

The evidence for the existence of God, in my opinion, is overwhelming. But I understand why some people may not want to believe...because after all, people don't like the idea of being told who they can/can't sleep with...who they can/can't lust after...so they'd rather not believe.

[Willum]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #67]
Sorry, post number five in this topic presents evidence and proof god is non-existent.

Rather than claim proof is overewhelming, which is what they all say, and go no further, why not debunk those?

[Tcg]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #61]

Pizza in a box:



God in a box:




Tcg

[Diagoras]

No, I don't. Why? Because I based the statement on what I believe to be sound/valid arguments backed by solid fire-proof pieces of evidences...which is exactly what the opposing side DOESN'T HAVE.

You state that you believe your argument to be sound/valid. We should therefore examine it for soundness and validity, to see whether there’s evidence to support your belief.

Saying ‘we wouldn’t be here to argue’ presupposes the very thing that you’re attempting to prove, i.e. that God exists and made us. That is logically an unsound argument.

If you prefer to just stick with that flawed reasoning, I can’t force you to change. But if you’re investing time on a debate forum, it’d be a pity to waste it on weak arguments.