Typhon

Is there evidence for god?

For many atheists like myself, one of the key problems with theism is that it appears to be based on evidence that simply isn't there or is not reliable or credible, when observed critically. As I have stated in other threads, I am primarily an atheist because of the evidential problems of believing in god or gods. I am not opposed to it for some personal reason, nor am I seeking to rebel, am angry with anyone or anything, or wish to throw mud in the face of believers. I do however require evidence of a credible sort, to construct and hold such beliefs, theism included.

So where is the evidence? I encourage both theists and atheists to try to put aside their predispositions or possible biases, and ask themselves, "Is there truly good evidence for god or gods?" Now obviously, this may differ for different religions, sects, and definitions of gods, but the problem I see, is that I've never seen any evidence of any kind, for any god or gods, of any sort (whew, that's a lot of "anys" isn't it?).

The world appears to be driven and dictated by purely naturalistic forces. The universe doesn't require a god to be present to account for itself or function. These are observations, and unlike the hunt for god, grounded in fact and evidence. This is the base starting point for my exploration of existence.

What would be the evidence for god that theists would put forth, and is that evidence sound, irrefutable, and most importantly, good enough to support a case for god or gods?

.T.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Philosoft

If, by "evidence," you mean evidence that a supernatural "cause" begat a natural effect, I would answer with an unequivocal "no." There are no things that, by their very existence, necessitate a violation of naturalistic cause-and-effect. In fact, a supernatural "cause" would be impossible to evidence naturalistically. An empirical proof would have to show there are no possible naturalistic forces that could account for a particular effect.

Typhon

Thanks Philosoft,

So are you saying that evidence of any kind for the supernatural existence of god, is impossible?

What if a supernatural god, is able to manifest itself in the natural world, and leave evidence of some kind, of its visit?

Also, it is my experience that most theists do not believe purely on faith. They feel that evidence has been revealed by their gods or god, that points to both their existence, and the existence of a supernatural realm beyond the natural universe.

I agree it's hard, very hard, to get this evidence to stand under the light of reasonable scrutiny. This is in part, why I'd like to see some theists present the evidence, and make a case for why this supports their god.

.T.

Philosoft

In the sense that we can't observe supernatural "evidence," yes.

<strong> If the supernatural being in question wanted to be observed by us, it would have to behave naturalistically, give off photons, produce sound waves, etc.

<strong> It is my experience that said theists don't think too critically about what they call "evidence."

<strong> I hope you have a good set of encyclopediae to read while you're waiting.

ManM

So, you want someone to assume naturalism and then prove God? Good luck with that.

Perchance

I think this might actually be a problem that doesn't have a solution, at least if we assume a naturalistic universe. How could any evidence given off by "god" be distinguished from other naturalistic evidence? If it used photons or sound waves, for example, how could we know they were originating from a supernatural rather than natural cause?

Yet at the same time, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume supernature. Perhaps we won't ever be able to solve everything we find puzzling about the universe, but so far science has provided naturalistic solutions, and supernature turns into frauds or a matter of perspective when looked at closely. So it would seem that no supernature exists at all in order to give off the signals (whether they be supernatural or natural).

Actually, this is probably also assuming a god that is a) intelligent enough to give off signals and b) benevolent and/or vain enough to want us to know of its existence. After all, even if there was a supernatural cause to the universe and we could somehow prove it, why should it have human attributes, or care about us at all? Or even be intelligent, for that matter?

-Perchance.

scumble

Most of the so-called evidence is used to "prove" the existence of whatever God with some unsubstantiated leap.

Supposedly, all the complex organisms must be designed, just because they are beyond our capability to manufacture. Why, exactly? It isn't really evidence.
I don't think any of us could think of any real evidence on the atheist side, and christians will bring up the usual stuff. I can't think of any reason at all to believe in God.

Philosoft

I think the problem is more profound than you gents (or ladies) realize. Unless humans have a specialized sensory organ that can not only detect 'supernature' but also indicate that a violation of cause-and-effect is occuring, all talk about supernatural 'cause' is hot air. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I can't conceive of an uncaused effect or an eternally existing thing.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

ManM

Philosoft,
It is all in the way you look at things. For me, God is at the beginning of reflection, not at the end. I interpret the world in that light, and hence the world itself becomes my evidence. For others, naturalism is at the beginning of reflection. With naturalism at the beginning, the only sort of God to be found would be constrained in nature. Indeed, anything supernatural makes absolutely no sense if we assume naturalism. It isn't a problem with evidence, but with interpretation.

Smitty13