What counts as evidence for/against God?

[DetlefK]

The old back and forth: There is no evidence! There is evidence! Evidence doesn't matter because belief does not depend on evidence! You are supposed to show evidence that he exists! No, you are supposed to show evidence that he doesn't exist!

What kind of evidence are we even talking about?
Witness-testimony?
A subjective sentient observer making a repeatable measurement on an object?

What would a piece of evidence for God's existence even look like?
What would a piece of evidence against God's existence even look like?
What would be good enough?

And let's say, there is a massive miracle that cannot in any way be explained by science and too many credible witnesses to discard it, how can we be sure that God did it? What if it was Satan? Or aliens? Or a hallucination?





Let me guess: "We will just know."
Okay, that means, as long as there's one guy who doesn't know, it doesn't count, because if it were the real deal, he would know.

[elleng]

1. Nothing.

[trotsky]

2. A definition of god must be presented first.

That will help outline what constitutes evidence for or against it.

[Cartoonist]

3. The last refuge of the theist

Is to define god in ineffable terms so that god can't be proven or dis-proven.

for example: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218298357

[oldlibdem]

4. Somewhere in the ancient Celtic world...

A dinosaur skeleton was discovered and the legend of dragons was born. As we progressed thru history, science proved evolution, and we now know the origin of species to one degree or another. Very few people believe that dragons as presented in mythology are real. Same with omnipotent deities. Ancient man saw events he could not explain and attributed them to "Gods". As we matured as a species we learned the truth about our world and Bronze-age mythology has fallen by the wayside.

[guillaumeb]

5. Define evidence, and define God.

I asked much the same questions some time ago.

[Lordquinton]

6. You claim god exists, you define him

You have been asked that question repeatedly many times way before you asked those questions.

If you need a definition for evidence, then either you don't have the knowledge to participate in the conversation, or you are acting in bad faith.

[guillaumeb]

7. I claim belief that God exists.

If you do not know the difference between and a claim of proof, you should not participate in the conversation, or....etc.

[Lordquinton]

8. I know the difference between claim and proof

I'm not asking for a definition of claim or evidence like you are, I'm asking you about what you believe exists.

[MineralMan]

9. Sophistry, Guy. Pure and Simple.

That's your specialty.

[guillaumeb]

10. Apart from what you reveal when speakigngto theists,

what is your specialty?

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Writing coherent sentences.

[guillaumeb]

16. In an interesting display of irony,

you answered for MM with an incomplete sentence.

Well done.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Are coherent and complete synonymous?

No?

Interesting.

[MineralMan]

18. I'm a generalist, Guy.

I really don't have a particular specialty when it comes to having opinions and sharing them. Many things interest me, but language is one of those things, so I do try to manage it as well as I can. From your title, it's clear that such things are not important to you. That's OK, though. We can usually figure out what it is you're trying so hard to say.

[keithbvadu2]

11. Descartes proved with logic that God exists but the Catholic Church rejected it because logic and pr

Descartes proved with logic that God exists but the Catholic Church rejected it because logic and proof negate the need for faith.

[edhopper]

12. His "proof" was not very compelling

just because he can conceive of it, doesn't mean it exists.

[DetlefK]

14. Logic is irrelevant.

Kurt Goedel made a proof of God, very similar to the one of Descartes: Both came to the conclusion that if a highest good is possible, then it must exist.

However, it always depends on whether the assumptions can be found in the real world. Goedel's assumptions were plainly unrealistic, thus rendering his proof no more than a mathematical exercise.

Descartes imagines God as unchanging and static (omnipotent, omniscient...), and from this he somehow deduces that God must exist. But think of all the things that exist and all the things that do not exist and will lnever exist? What is more in line with being static and unchanging? Existence or non-existence?

[edhopper]

19. " What is more in line with being static and unchanging? Existence or non-existence?"

wonderful logic, worthy of Descartes.

[marylandblue]

13. Witness testimony is all we have

Some people claim to have seen, spoken to, or entered mystical union with God. It's worth as much or as little as any other uncorroborated witness testimony.

[qazplm135]

20. You'd have to define God

if we are talking GOD with omnipotence, omniscience, etc...then you'd need some acts that very clearly break the laws of physics.

Maybe reanimate in perfect form everyone who has ever lived instantaneously. Or cause the Earth to instantly change orbit and yet maintain things as they are. Swing it out into the space between galaxies but the Sky is still blue and heat is still raining down.

If we are talking something/someone of a lesser sort, then we are really just talking about a very smart, very powerful creature but not GOD who has little g god-like powers.

[Iggo]

21. There's tons of evidence against.

No god is there.

Or there.

Or over there.

Or under this.

Or behind that.

Nowhere.

No god is there.
There is no god.

[DetlefK]

22. Failure to provide evidence for something is not the same as providing evidence against something.

That's not how science works.

There is no evidence that a sack of rice just fell over in China. Does that mean, we can deduce that NO sack of rice did just fall over in China?

[Iggo]

23. God keeps piling up absences.

And that's a little more evidence against, every time.

[edhopper]

24. Those making the claim must provide the evidence

or at least posit what the evidence should be.
That is how science works.

Those advocating for the Ether, or N-Rays or Cold Fusion were the ones that needed to provide proof.