Is there really no evidence of God?

[Tart]

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

[Kenisaw]

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

You could have solved this little quandry right off the bat by simply posting some empirical data or evidence that supports the claim that a god or gods exist. Yet we note that you didn't do that. The reason you didn't do that is the same reason that no believer has ever posted any empirical data or evidence on this website or any website since time began - because there isn't any. You and I both know if there was such proof it would have made every news story and print publication across the globe.

The simple truth is that there is no evidence. That you believe because of some personal experience or because your parents told you so or you didn't die in a plane crash that could have killed you is not empirical...it's just bad logic.

Of course, you can refute my entire post by slapping some empirical evidence up in your reply, and make me eat crow.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Recently a forum member made the claim that the holy spirit was the display of the biblical GODs power here, on this planet. [link to that post]

Stories involved with this particular ghost attribute it with doing everything from comforting the individual right through to killing the individual, and this is all evidence of the GOD in action.

Some even say that a preacher inspired by this ghost to raise funds for a multi million dollar jet and the emotional outpouring of generosity of the congregation to make that a reality, is evidence of this GOD in action, on this planet.

While anyone can accept that as evidence at face value because they choose to believe it, such can be explained/interpreted in other ways, so it is not cut and dry by any means.

By and large, evidence of GOD is subjective at best, which is fine by me as long as it isn't evil, because I don't think GOD is evil.

But then of course, what i think is good or evil is also subjective.

I think the whole universe, and life on Earth is evidence of GOD, but this does not mean I necessarily am obligated to follow after religions who claim that their particular idea of GOD is the one who made it so. That is a whole different argument.

[rikuoamero]

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

Your OP is sorely lacking in actual evidence. So I'll echo Kenisaw. What is this evidence?

Just the same as Lee Stroble,

A known liar. Or at least someone who has got to have some dishonest intentions at play somewhere. If you don't know what I mean...check out the difference between the book version of The Case for Christ, and the movie. If this guy is trying to make an honest case for Christ, why does his character in the movie version "come to Christ" for different reasons than what are stated in the book? I understand adding some drama so as to draw in viewers...but in my opinion this crosses the line into dishonesty. He could disavow the movie, but to my knowledge, he hasn't.

Simon Greenleaf

An 1800s lawyer who didn't have access to many branches of science that exist today. What would Greenleaf say to the science based around DNA disproving beyond the shadow of a doubt Adam and Eve?

Peter Stoner

I've disproven Stoner's mathematics on this site before. It's funny that those who put forth Stoner's "probabilities" never actually responded...

So Tart...actually got anything at all?

[Tart]

I believe in Christianity because the evidence shows that Jesus is the Messiah. That the prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ, the fulfilment of the law, the reasoning given by the disciples, the crucifiction of Christ in accordence to the scripture for the forgiveness of sin, and His rsurresurrection. That is the evidence of God, which has the ability to convict people in its authenticity.

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

I believe in God because the evidence convinced me... I not only think this is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one...

So how can you justify there is no evidence of God?

[rikuoamero]

I believe in Christianity because the evidence shows that Jesus is the Messiah. That the prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ, the fulfilment of the law, the reasoning given by the disciples, the crucifiction of Christ in accordence to the scripture for the forgiveness of sin, and His rsurresurrection. That is the evidence of God, which has the ability to convict people in its authenticity.

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

I believe in God because the evidence convinced me... I not only think this is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one...

So how can you justify there is no evidence of God?

This response to both Kenisaw and myself requesting evidence is akin to a judge asking for evidence that the defendant actually committed the crime, and the prosecution saying "the evidence shows the defendant did it", without actually showing this so called evidence.

I also want to comment on this

I not only think this is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one

How is it the "only" reasonable one? There are plenty of reasonable explanations for Christianity and other religions. Why dismiss them a priori?

[Tart]

I believe in Christianity because the evidence shows that Jesus is the Messiah. That the prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ, the fulfilment of the law, the reasoning given by the disciples, the crucifiction of Christ in accordence to the scripture for the forgiveness of sin, and His rsurresurrection. That is the evidence of God, which has the ability to convict people in its authenticity.

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

I believe in God because the evidence convinced me... I not only think this is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one...

So how can you justify there is no evidence of God?

This response to both Kenisaw and myself requesting evidence is akin to a judge asking for evidence that the defendant actually committed the crime, and the prosecution saying "the evidence shows the defendant did it", without actually showing this so called evidence.

I also want to comment on this

I not only think this is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one

How is it the "only" reasonable one? There are plenty of reasonable explanations for Christianity and other religions. Why dismiss them a priori?

Ok so you have no way to justify "there is no evidence"? Just pretend it doesn't exist? (FYI, thats not very convincing)


And if you have a better explanation feel free to present it...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by Tart]

Ok so you have no way to justify "there is no evidence"?

The court notes that the prosecution has yet to actually offer this evidence, beyond claiming that it exists.

And if you have a better explanation feel free to present it...

It's not about better. It's about you using that word 'reasonable'. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for Christianity or any other religion, which is not the same thing as saying that they are correct/true.
There's a few reasonable explanations for how I lost my keys the other day. I could have dropped them, left them somewhere, been pickpocketed, etc. What does not make sense is saying that there is only the one reasonable explanation and that one is that a ghost took them.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 7 by Tart]

Ok so you have no way to justify "there is no evidence"?

The court notes that the prosecution has yet to actually offer this evidence, beyond claiming that it exists.

And if you have a better explanation feel free to present it...

It's not about better. It's about you using that word 'reasonable'. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for Christianity or any other religion, which is not the same thing as saying that they are correct/true.
There's a few reasonable explanations for how I lost my keys the other day. I could have dropped them, left them somewhere, been pickpocketed, etc. What does not make sense is saying that there is only the one reasonable explanation and that one is that a ghost took them.

OK so you can't justify to me that the evidence I believe in, in fact actually doesn't exist ? You just pretend it doesn't exist? Thats not helping your case

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Tart]

Ok so you have no way to justify "there is no evidence"? Just pretend it doesn't exist? (FYI, thats not very convincing)

Well Tart, it is plain to this reader that rikuoamero wasn't pretending Christianity didn't exist, and how anyone could have come to that conclusion by what rikuoamero did say, shows me as a reader, that you have failed to understand what rikuoamero was saying.

Sure, rikuoamero didn't provide an alternate explanation as to how Christianity came into existence, but this in itself doesn't mean anyone hasn't already created reasonable alternate explanations, and a simple internet search can provide many answers to that question for you. Indeed, even you could come up with alternate explanations if you put you heart and mind to it.

But from what I can gather in your response here, you are confused from the go get. You believe because the evidence is in the bible, that Jesus was prophesied and - also in the bible - Jesus came into existence and apparently (according to the bible) fulfilled the prophecies.

There is serious lack of any other evidence outside of the bible, which should give any reasonable thinking person reason for pause and reflection rather than for embracing belief based upon only one source of evidence, perhaps coupled with emotionally driven knee-jerk reactivity.

That is essentially what rikuoamero is stating.

Reasonable thinking people are unwilling to believe in something which basically testifies of itself, where there is no substantial outside evidence to support the insider claims, as it were. Self praise is no recommendation.

Now for sure, if YOU want to believe this is evidence, based upon something which testifies of itself with no outside evidence, that is your prerogative, but if you and anyone else who seeks to proclaim others must also believe the same - for the same reasons, then you overstep the line. Indeed, if this proclamation also involves terrible consequence promised on those who do not believe in the bible, this not only oversteps the line, but is a disgusting ploy which may have been acceptable in darker (more ignorant) times, but has no place in today's world.

Believe it or not.