Buck Swope

One thing that I don't understand about athesits is that they like to claim that there is no evidence that God exists.

But it's obvious to me that everything is evidence that God exists.

So it seems that one's idea of what "evidence" might be is pretty subjective.

And I get the notion that no amount of evidence would suffice in the atheist's mind; even though they'll all believe other ideas pretty much on faith.

missus_gumby

Ignoring all the illogic of Buck's post, let's imagine the existence of everything around us is evidence of a god. Buck, why would we assume it's your particular god? After all, anyone from any theistic religion can come up with the same "argument".

However, whereas "one's idea" of what constitutes evidence for the existence of a god may well be subjective, actual evidence is purely objective. That's the only sort Buck will convince me with. And until that time, my only course of action is to consider he's only making it all up in his head.

Martin

Family Man

When I studied science and math in school, it also seemed to me that the evidence and arguments were also very clear and right to the point. When I left, I always felt I could trust the conclusion that was drawn from the discussion.

When I see statements like, "everything is evidence that God exists", I'd have to conclude then that:

1) The snow that fell in my backyard last night is evidence that God exists.
2) The electricity that flows through my computer is evidence that God exists.
3) The fact my wife is working today is evidence that God exists.

Clearly, none of the above statements follows. "Everything is evidence" is, I'm sure, very reassuring to a believer. As a skeptic, however, I view it as nothing more than rhetorical excess and sloppy thinking.

Yours certainly is.

Really? When scientists say something is true and I believe that they are right -- and not because I'm familiar with the subject -- is it because I'm taking it on faith or because science has a system I am familiar with and because science has a track record of being right far more frequently than not?

Can theists say the same thing when their prayers appear to be a hit-or miss proposition?

Buck Swope

Red herring. What makes you think I'm talking about any "particular" god?

Quote:

However, whereas "one's idea" of what constitutes evidence for the existence of a god may well be subjective, actual evidence is purely objective.

Evidence is always subject to interpretation. For example, if a murder occurs and the gun that was used in the murder was found in your car, is that evidence that you committed the murder? Some would say yes, some would say no, depending on other factors.

Kvalhion

Buck,

The biggest problem with your argument that I see is that you simply presuppose a supernatural deity exists, and then look at everything around you as evidence to support that presupposition. This is the opposite of what science does; you are first making a conclusion and are then trying to characterize the evidence to support your conclusion, rather than examining the evidence first and formulating a theory that seems to support the evidence.

For me, I see no compelling reason to presuppose the existence of the supernatural, other than an argument from ignorance. The "evidence" requested is not to support the concept that a god exists, it is to establish a compelling reason to even consider the concept in the first place.

There is a profound lack of demonstration for anything supernatural. Other than unverifiable, personal claims (that are often shown to be nothing more than a hoax), there is no compelling reason to believe any force exists outside of nature.

You say that nothing will convince a nonbeliever, yet when nonbelievers do come up with the most simple request, you automatically reply "Well, god doesn't work that way! You can't make requests of him!" At some point, you simply dismiss the outrageous unfalsifiable claims of people who will never actually put their claims to the test.

Free Thinkr

If you didn't have some particular god in mind, how would you go about finding evidence for its existence? I guess you'll have to define god. If by god you mean "force that created the universe," many here will agree there is some sort of god.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Buck Swope :

Perhaps you'd like to explain your epistemological promiscuity. Why isn't everything evidence that God doesn't exist?

That's going to be a problem no matter what. Luckily, we have the rhetorical tools to come to some agreement about what would constitute evidence for what.

Would you please give some examples? I don't believe anything in absence of good reason to believe.

If you're wondering what would make me believe in God, I would believe, given (1) a sound deductive argument or an inductive argument stronger than the evidential arguments against God's existence, and (2) an answer to the deductive arguments against God's existence.

sandlewood

Buck, there is no reason to connect God as a cause with everything that exists as the effect. Where is the connection? Everything that exists could have been created by really smart aliens. Or everything may not have been created at all. All we know is that it is here.

Buck Swope

Look at it this way, folks:

The statement "Everything is evidence that God exists" is no less logical than the statement "Nothing is evidence that God exists".

Neither can be proven, yet many atheists assume that the latter is somehow not based on faith, like the former obviously is.

Buck Swope

This is pretty much a statement of faith, and it assumes that science and logic is the only way we can know anything.

The problem is, you can't emperically prove that only emperical evidence is valuable.