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.

[Diagoras]

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.

It would be helpful to quote Miles exactly. Whenever someone (not just you) claims their debate opponent said something 'along those lines', it risks discussion becoming muddled. I'm not accusing you of shifting the goalposts (another logical fallacy), but the original exchange was different enough from your statement above to be worth noting.

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.

If you've gone searching for the evidence and not found any, then it does in fact follow. Have you searched every inch of your basement, with sniffer dogs, infra-red cameras and set out food bait traps, for example? If so, and there's no evidence, then yes - it follows that there's no homeless man in your basement.

If however, you're sat upstairs with your eyes shut, hands over your ears and just shout, "I don't see or hear anyone!", then that doesn't count as 'no evidence'.

The evidence for the existence of God, in my opinion, is overwhelming.

Opinion noted.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Tcg in post #69]

Even if God is a clown in a box, that still would mean that God exists, right? Which in essence undermines atheism.

So thank you.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[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?

Admittedly, I didn't read any of the posts within the thread. I only replied to the OP. I will indeed debunk any alleged evidence/proof for the non-existence of God.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Ok, I see. Perhaps maybe I was too modest in saying "I believe", because that really isn't the case..so I will retract that statement and go on record for saying "I Know" that the arguments that I listed are logically sound/valid, and any statements I make in the future is based on the background knowledge and information that I have supporting the soundness and validity of those arguments.

So make no mistake about it.

Also, as far as presenting the arguments so they can be examined; those are six different arguments which are better off discussed in their own separate threads, IMO.

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.

Well, since you are calling the arguments weak; sounds like you've already examined them and made your decision.

In that case, we simply disagree on the strength of the arguments.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It would be helpful to quote Miles exactly.

Whenever someone (not just you) claims their debate opponent said something 'along those lines', it risks discussion becoming muddled. I'm not accusing you of shifting the goalposts (another logical fallacy), but the original exchange was different enough from your statement above to be worth noting.

Um, I began by quoting Miles (see post 58), and our (you and I) entire dialogue pertaining to this matter is based upon my original critique of his reasoning.

I assumed you were following along here. You gotta keep up.

If you've gone searching for the evidence and not found any, then it does in fact follow.

Not necessarily. It is called "covering your tracks; thus, leaving no evidence behind".

Usually, wise people who know they are doing wrong try to accomplish this.

Have you searched every inch of your basement, with sniffer dogs, infra-red cameras and set out food bait traps, for example? If so, and there's no evidence, then yes - it follows that there's no homeless man in your basement.

SMH.

[Miles]

[Replying to Tcg in post #69]

Even if God is a clown in a box, that still would mean that God exists, right? Which in essence undermines atheism.

Considering that atheism stands in contrast to theism (Atheism. Like Amoral---not moral) in the broadest sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of god(s), and like religion, there are different kinds of atheism:

1) Some atheists declare there is no god.

2) Some atheists don't believe there is a god.

3) Some atheists are unconvinced there is a god

4) Some atheists are unaware of the concept of god.

The difference may be subtle, but they're the most commonly cited forms.


.

[brunumb]

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

The only time you have to fall back on arguments is when you have no empirical evidence to present.

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but none of it will mean that there actually is a pizza in the box. The trouble with all god claims is that you can't look in the box. You have to rely on self-appointed spokespeople who really have no more knowledge than anyone else.

[DavidLeon]

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.

Well. This is certainly an interesting turn of events. One of us that speaks their language. Ethang5, is that you? Welcome to the forum.

[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 overwhelming, which is what they all say, and go no further, why not debunk those?

Admittedly, I didn't read any of the posts within the thread. I only replied to the OP. I will indeed debunk any alleged evidence/proof for the non-existence of God.

And I will indeed expect you to do so.
I do expect you, based on general theistic behaviours, to continue to make grand claims of evidence, such as "proof is everywhere," and to not debunk what was submitted.
Sorry, guilt by association, I know, but, please prove me wrong.

[unknown soldier]

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

In my way of thinking, to get to the evidence for God, I need to see the evidence. Arguments are just words, like I said. You apologists are welcome to present evidence for God or better yet, present God himself!

I'm not holding my breath waiting for any of that.

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

What did you expect atheism to deliver, and how much money were you conned out of?

Anyway, if any atheists didn't "deliver" on what they promised you, then yes, they should return any money you paid to them believing that evidently empty promise.

Why should Christianity be any different?

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.

Sorry, but I won't believe you until I actually see the pizza. Would you disagree with anybody who would open the pizza box demonstrating that it's empty? Would you go on believing on faith that there's really a pizza in the box? Would you make up elaborate arguments to convince skeptics that there really is a pizza hoping that they'll believe you without ever seeing the pizza?

If not, then I'm wondering why you respond to the empty claims of Christianity believing those claims.

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

Yes. Your perception has little to do with reality, of course.

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).

But I'm still waiting to see the pizza--and waiting to see God. If I got food the way Christians get their God, then I would have starved long ago.