There is no evidence for God?

[Tart]

I never understood this statement, that there is no evidence for God.. I mean even if you dont believe some evidence, that doesnt mean it is nonexistent... Seems like a cop-out to having a legitimate debate about the evidence...

I mean, we could say that the evidence of God is Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

We could say that the evidence Jesus is the Messiah is the fulfillment of prophecy, and the testimony of the witnesses.

We could say that the evidence for the fulfillment of prophecy, is the tons of prophecies in the scripture... Or the testimony of the witnesses, and their authenticity to what they believed..

I dont understand how there is no evidence, specifically... Can someone shed light on that?

If you have ever said the statement "there is no evidence of God", how do your justify that?

[Divine Insight]

If you have ever said the statement "there is no evidence of God", how do your justify that?

When I say there is no evidence for any God, I'm talking about real evidence. Not hearsay rumors and myths.

Everything you've listed above as "evidence" is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors and myth.

If you count that sort of thing as "evidence" then there exists evidence for all the Gods of all cultures. If rumors and hearsay count as 'evidence' then there is plenty of evidence for Greek Mythology.

In fact, I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is actually historical and geological "evidence" that many of the tales told in Greek mythology actually occurred. One example struck me as being quite profound when I was studying Greek history. There was a story of and entire navy fleet that was rumored to have been sunken by a huge storm created by the God Poseidon. Greek historians actually discovered historical and geological evidence of this event.

So is this evidence for Poseidon? I think not. And historians don't think it's evidence for Poseidon either. What actually happened was that there was an extreme and abnormal storm that apparently sunk an entire navy fleet. And because this was such an unexpected and rare event, it was naturally attributed to the Gods.

Hebrew mythology no doubt evolved the same way. This is why geological and historical "evidence' for these events isn't very compelling. When something extraordinary happens, is natural for a culture to attribute it to their God. So then when theists study the history and find evidence for events in religious story they mistakenly see this as 'evidence' for the God, when in fact, it's not evidence at all.

~~~~~

Consider the following:

If you could PROVE to me beyond any reasonable doubt that some guy named Jesus had actually lived, argued with the Jewish Chief Priests, was crucified for apostasy, and was guaranteed to have been seen alive after his crucifixion I STILL wouldn't believe that Jesus was the son of any God. All that 'evidence' would suggest is that some guy made a big stink about religion, was crucified over it, and possibly survived the ordeal.

That conclusion makes far more sense than to think that some God had actually planned out such an absurd scenario to try to make a point to humans. A point that would be argued over by humans for centuries to come after the fact anyway.

I mean, clearly it doesn't even make sense to have been planned out by some God. So how would those things be "evidence"?

There is no compelling evidence for the existence of any Gods. If you want to believe in a God on pure faith, by all means be my guest. But if you want to debate that there is any compelling evidence to believe in these Gods, you are gravely mistaken.

Not only is there no compelling evidence to believe in these Gods, but to the contrary, there is actually far more evidence to believe that these stories are indeed nothing more than the made-up rumors of men.

The evidence for that is overwhelming.

Religion is a faith-based hobby. If you think there is anything more to it than that, then you've been misled by someone. Most likely by people who preach that there is compelling evidence for it, when in fact there isn't.

Does a God exist? I have no clue. And I'm not suggesting that people should become hardcore atheists.

However, if the question is, "Is there any compelling evidence for a God?", then the answer to that is a resounding, "No, there isn't".

And the evidence against Gods like those described in the Abrahamic literature like the Bible, and Qur'an is overwhelming. Those stories prove their own fallacy.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Evidence for God differs from "proof" of God because proof connotes publicly-confirmed data arrived at by experiment and observation of material objects and processes. God, as non-material spirit, and as a subjective inner experience, can be highly evidential for the experiencer, but can only be "proved" when other experiencers undertake the same search and have the same "Gnostic" inner experience as other claimants. Subjective phenomena, precisely because they are personal and private, cannot be re-located into the material realm of objective quantification, and cannot be proved like the existence and functions of objective, external, material objects and processes.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Evidence for God differs from "proof" of God because proof connotes publicly-confirmed data arrived at by experiment and observation of material objects and processes. God, as non-material spirit, and as a subjective inner experience, can be highly evidential for the experiencer, but can only be "proved" when other experiencers undertake the same search and have the same "Gnostic" inner experience as other claimants. Subjective phenomena, precisely because they are personal and private, cannot be re-located into the material realm of objective quantification, and cannot be proved like the existence and functions of objective, external, material objects and processes

and therefore does not exist.

[steveb1]

[Replying to Willum]

And therefore you have zero knowledge of mystical experience.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

I think two problems lie behind this error. 1) people misuse the word "evidence". They mean "proof"; that is, conclusive evidence. The kind of accumulative evidence which a man would have to be stupid or insanely biased to dismiss. But that is not what 'evidence' means, as any detective or lawyer will tell you. Evidence means anything that points in the direction of a conclusion; 2) Evidence is used as an empirical term, and empiricism for the last couple centuries has been made an idol in reasoning. Thus, arguments from logic are dismissed as child's play, not evidence. I think Aristotle would be quite indignant to learn his metaphysics is child's play.

There is in fact plenty of evidence for God: it is not conclusive: that is, a person can disbelieve in God without consigning himself to the intellectual category of idiot. The same can be said the other way.

[wiploc]

I think two problems lie behind this error. 1) people misuse the word "evidence". They mean "proof"; that is, conclusive evidence.

I'll respond to this before I respond to the OP. When I say that there's no evidence for the existence of gods, I'm not making this mistake. I'm saying that I don't know of any evidence at all. And, further, I believe that there isn't any.

How can there not be any? Well, I don't know of any evidence that survives inspection.

Except for the thing about polonium halos, the arguments are all worthless sleight of mouth. That includes those arguments by Plantinga, the reigning intellectual king of Christianity, and William Lane Craig, the reigning mountebank. The polonium halo thing I don't understand, so I can't say on my own authority that it's bogus, but I generalize: based on the absurd lameness of all the other arguments, I assume that the polonium halo argument is also worthless.

What does that leave? What do people think is evidence? Coincidences? Dreams? Personal convictions? How do those amount to evidence, particularly when they are offset be equally credible "evidence" to the contrary?

If you say you had a dream and learned that Jesus is god, I'll point to a friend who says that god's spirit entered into her, and she realized/understood/knew that he is a monotheist god as opposed to a triune god. Jesus is no part of god.

I don't know that you could count your dream as evidence of anything in the first place, but certainly, once you evaluate that "evidence" in the context of other people's conflicting dreams, it weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.

What does that leave? What is the so-called evidence?

If it existed, we'd have heard about it.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

I would agree with liamconnor that most often when you hear the statement "There is no evidence for God" that the speaker is referring specifically to empirical evidence only.

Personally I find claims about "God" and "evidence" to be missing the point, regardless of which side is making them. Religion is about value structure, not detective work.

[Bust Nak]

If you have ever said the statement "there is no evidence of God", how do your justify that?

I justify it by qualifying the word "evidence" with "empirical."

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

I would agree with liamconnor that most often when you hear the statement "There is no evidence for God" that the speaker is referring specifically to empirical evidence only.

Personally I find claims about "God" and "evidence" to be missing the point, regardless of which side is making them. Religion is about value structure, not detective work.

Well, yes, but why does one get to count 'imaginary evidence,' in the same category as real evidence?
"Because I feel it," is not a good reason to accept it, and pointing to religion as a value structure is like blaming the child for its parent's birth. Religion came after values, not before.