It would really put this site on the map if we could prove or disprove the existence of God here once and for all. We'll all get on Larry King. We could write a book together. It would be great.
Honestly, though, there have been people far more educated, intelligent, spiritual, scientific, and dedicated than us who have debated this for thousand of years with no conclusion. Still, we just can't help ourselve, can we? I sure can't, so here it goes.
The following statement:
That which can be claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
is self contadictory for the purpos of proving God. If you are saying that there is not evidence to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is proven false. Okay fine.
I say "There is a God."
You say "Prove it."
I can't, so I'm wrong
But, you say "There is no God."
I say "Prove it."
You can't, so your wrong.
Simply not being able to see or feel God does not prove that he isn't there. From a scientific point of view, if you consider all that we know about the universe, it is only a small percentage of what there is still to learn. Introduce quantum mechanics into the mix and we get alternate dimension to worry about as well. If God did, in fact, create all this, do you think he wouldn't be able to hide from us if he wanted to? Or reveal Himself to us as he chooses. Do you think we could hunt down God and corner him? Many religions provide valid explanations as to why God would want to hide himself from our physical eyes.
But to say that there is no evidence for God is untrue. First, we must define evidence. Many sources may say that evidence and proof are the same thing, but evidence my also mean "that which may cause one to believe something."
For instance, because I found the bloody knife in your car doesn't prove that you killed her. The killer may have put it there, but it will still be evidence in the court of law and lead the jury to believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did it.
In the same way, there are many evidences of God. The idea that an infinitely complex universe exists suggests that someone had to design it. The fact that many physically separated people groups independently developed various religions that all preach the same basic principals of goodness would suggest that there is an attainable spiritual influence present in our world. (I have personally experience God in a way that leaves me without doubt, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. 🙂 )
These points may be debated and are certainly not proof of God, but they are evidence as they would suggest the possibility of God.
In the same way there is no proof that God doesn't exist. As explained above, not being able to see or touch him is not proof enough. Evolution or the Big Bang, to me, only suggest a more elaborate and dramatic method of creation.
It is beneficial to all to keep these debates going, unfortunately they usually end up in insulting remarks. So...should I post this? Oh, why not?
Originally posted by 667joeAh, the unanswerable question...so be it. If you consider the possibilty that God created time when he created the universe, and that an existance with out time is inconceivable to us, then we may say that there was no "before God." God simply is and never wasn't. I know that isn't going to satisfy you but, there you go. There is no answer to that question, besides that he always has been. We time-based creatures simply can't understand that.
You are indeed a civil person. Who designed the designer, that is how did God come to exist?
The Big Bang theory is similar, in that the Egg From Which All Exploded had to have come about from something. Dan Brown in Angels and Demons reported scientific evidence that colliding energy particles can create equal parts matter and anti-matter. Thus, the Egg may have been created by energy colliding...from where, exactly? Plus, Dan Brown tends not to get his facts straight...
Originally posted by AProdigyEvidence is not proof. Proof implies validation with certainty, evidence implies an increment in the probability of something.
But to say that there is no evidence for God is untrue. First, we must define evidence. Many sources may say that evidence and proof are the same thing, but evidence my also mean "that which may cause one to believe something."
Under such a definition, there is no evidence for the existence of God.
Originally posted by josephwFalse. The mere fact that things exist cannot distinguish in any way between the theist hypotheses for explaining the existence of the universe or the non-theists ones.
The evidence for the existence of God is everything that exists.
If there is no informational value (for the purpose of distinguishing between the two hypothesis) in the fact that things exist, then it is NOT evidence.
Originally posted by PalynkaWrong. It is not a hypothesis that everything that exists is evidence for a creator. Any other explanation for the existence of everything is a delusion.
False. The mere fact that things exist cannot distinguish in any way between the theist hypotheses for explaining the existence of the universe or the non-theists ones.
If there is no informational value (for the purpose of distinguishing between the two hypothesis) in the fact that things exist, then it is NOT evidence.
Originally posted by josephwJust because I say something is true, or even believe it to be true, doesn't make it true. And it certainly doesn't make it irrefutable evidence of the 'truth' that I believe.
Wrong. It is not a hypothesis that everything that exists is evidence for a creator. Any other explanation for the existence of everything is a delusion.
You claim everything is evidence of god's existence.
But to have this as reliable evidence for god's existence we must first accept that god exists. But to accept god's existence we must use the evidence of everything?
That's circular if ever anything was, and of course, proves nothing.
I don't dispute that you believe that everything proves gods existence. But don't claim it to be irrefutable ...
Originally posted by PalynkaYour post confuses me. You agree with me that evidence is something that implies the possibility or probibility of something, but you then state that there is no evidence of God. My previous post lists several that, by your own definition, which is the same and mine, are valid evidences of God. Could you please clarify?
Evidence is not proof. Proof implies validation with certainty, evidence implies an increment in the probability of something.
Under such a definition, there is no evidence for the existence of God.