Evidence for a God

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

We've kind of touched on this subject in several other threads, but I thought it deserved it's open place. Considering the widespread belief in a god or gods, I would expect some kind of evidence to support this belief. Where is it?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,633 • Replies: 74

No top replies

Re: Evidence for a God

fungotheclown wrote:

We've kind of touched on this subject in several other threads, but I thought it deserved it's open place. Considering the widespread belief in a god or gods, I would expect some kind of evidence to support this belief. Where is it?

Are you asking for 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' ?

0 Replies

Welcome to A2k. Hope you enjoy your time on A2K.

While reading the threads here, you'll find many discussions on this subject as is the case on many online forums. That very subject has been covered relentlessly. Feel free to look around.

And, what Realife wrote applies:

"Are you asking for 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'?"

0 Replies

Yes. We require evidence when making decisions about environmentalism, mental health, medicine, and financial decisions, why wouldn't we require it when making a decision about god?

0 Replies

Define evidence.

Do you accept circumstantial evidence?

Anecdotal evidence?

If only replicable scientific evidence, what are your acceptable correlations?

0 Replies

Circumstantial evidence and anecdotal evidence are not evidence at all. I want something more than just gaps in knowledge, I want testable predictions. I want to treat the concept of god like every other scientific hypothesis.

0 Replies

..you want scientific proof of a hypothetically supernatural being? Good luck

0 Replies

Why do you choose to define god in such a way that prohibits confirmation?

0 Replies

Can you scientifically prove to me what you ate for dinner on July 23, fungo?

Can you scientifically prove to me what thoughts you are thinking right now?

Isn't it true that the scientific method is relatively limited in what it can and cannot be effectively used for?

0 Replies

RL - Fungo clearly asked for proof of God, and he said very clearly that gaps in information do not suffice as proof.

You are asked to provide proof for something, and you delivered a very non-answer to a question that wan't proposed in this thread. Please go and create a seperate thread asking the body of A2K to provide proof of what they ate last week or of what they are thinking.

T
K
O

P.S. - STFU.

0 Replies

No, RL, I can't prove either of those. I can, however, provide evidence. I can show you a grocery or restaurant receipt for July 23. I can provide multiple, reliable witnesses that saw me eat. As far as my thoughts, I can tell you what they are, a functional MRI to show that the respective parts of my brain are indeed active. I didn't ask for proof of god, I asked for evidence.

Another thing you need to consider is that me eating and me having thoughts is not unprecedented, and there is evidence of both occurring all the time. Neither of these violates physical laws as we understand them. The same is not true of a god.

I don't think the scientific method is limited in what it can and cannot effectively be used for. I think you just lack imagination in applying it.

0 Replies

I wouldn't challenge RL's imagination...

T
K
O

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Circumstantial evidence and anecdotal evidence are not evidence at all. I want something more than just gaps in knowledge, I want testable predictions. I want to treat the concept of god like every other scientific hypothesis.

Then you will have a similar problem with speciation.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

fungotheclown wrote:
Circumstantial evidence and anecdotal evidence are not evidence at all. I want something more than just gaps in knowledge, I want testable predictions. I want to treat the concept of god like every other scientific hypothesis.
Then you will have a similar problem with speciation.

I don't Fungo will have a problem. I think those who claim there is evidence of God have the problem.

It's not a problem for Fungo if no evidence is brought forth.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

fungotheclown wrote:

We've kind of touched on this subject in several other threads, but I thought it deserved it's open place. Considering the widespread belief in a god or gods, I would expect some kind of evidence to support this belief. Where is it?

There is no empirical evidence for God. God is not a thing or person "out there". We don't look for empirical evidence for emotions such as love, or thoughts, or mathematical truths. There is a vast internal world that we each experience that has nothing to do with empirical evidence. We know love exists because we confess that we experience it and live our lives as if it exists. As such, it has an observable effect upon each of us and the world. The spiritual dimension is known because people have spiritual experiences and it affects how they live in the world and act toward others. God, or the spiritual dimension, or consciousness, or the life-energy, or whatever you want to call it, expresses itself in the world through humans. We realize God. We express the creative potential of God. God is not separable from humans anymore than love or happiness or sorrow or compassion or art or mathematics or music is separable from humans. That is not to say that humans created God any more than humans created love. It is an internal experience that tells us something about the nature of the only reality that we know.

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

IFeelFree wrote:

There is no empirical evidence for God.

Bingo.

IFeelFree wrote:

We don't look for empirical evidence for emotions such as love, or thoughts, or mathematical truths.

Incorrect.

IFeelFree wrote:

We realize God. We express the creative potential of God.

This makes god not supernatural but superreal.

IFeelFree wrote:

God is not separable from humans anymore than love or happiness or sorrow or compassion or art or mathematics or music is separable from humans.

Incorrect AND poorly constructed.

IFeelFree wrote:

That is not to say that humans created God any more than humans created love.

Humans may not have created what we call love but they certainly defined it. Just like we defined what a "dozen" is.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

real life wrote:

fungotheclown wrote:
We've kind of touched on this subject in several other threads, but I thought it deserved it's open place. Considering the widespread belief in a god or gods, I would expect some kind of evidence to support this belief. Where is it?

Are you asking for 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' ?

I think he is.

If the supernatural exists, it should still be possible for it to leave evidence in a natural form. A live flower for instance, with a completely unique genetic structure (no DNA), no known living relatives and no history in the fossil record. Or a large boulder which wasn't affected by gravity, floating just off the ground. IF such a things existed, they might be considered evidence for the supernatural (or god).

Of course, since so many people believe in god, the evidence for it must be fairly common and widespread.

0 Replies

Quote:

Then you will have a similar problem with speciation.

Actually, I don't. The fossil record, basic anatomy, and genetic record all support speciation.

We do look for empirical evidence of love, thoughts, and mathematical truths. There is a great deal of psychological research devoted to both love and thought, trying to discover how and why both occur. As far as mathematical truths are concerned, we have evidence for those whenever something designed using them doesn't end in disaster. Is our understanding of these topics perfect? No. But to say we don't have evidence to their existence is to exaggerate a gap in knowledge to further a personal point.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

neologist wrote:
Then you will have a similar problem with speciation.

Actually, I don't. The fossil record, basic anatomy, and genetic record all support speciation. . .

Perhaps, but the implied mechanism of natural selection may not be replicated in these observations.

0 Replies

It can be replicated through computer simulations and experiments involving genetic manipulation. Also, not all evidence has to be replicable. Practically none of cosmology and astronomy is replicable, but they are still considered science. The difference is that they have evidence. That's it. Show me something that points to the existence of a god that doesn't have a simpler, better supported explanation.

0 Replies

Evidence for a God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know