What Would you Consider Good Evidence for the Existence of God?

Image result for image of a flying horse

Conservative Christian:  What would you consider “good evidence” for the existence of God?

Gary:  A specific god or just a non-specific Creator?  I will accept as fact that the universe was created by an intelligent designer/creator when the majority of scientists tell us that there is sufficient scientific evidence indicating as such. When it comes to the existence of the virgin born, resurrected, Jesus of Nazareth—omnipotent and omnipresent King of the Cosmos—I would probably require the same type of evidence that you would require to believe in the existence of a flying horse.

 

 

End of post.

10 thoughts on “What Would you Consider Good Evidence for the Existence of God?

  1. I don’t have to know this. Because if there’s an all-knowing all-powerful god out there, it already knows what I would need to see, better than I do. But nothing has shown up yet.

    But I know what convincing evidence doesn’t look like.

    It’s not a bunch of philosophical word games from apologists.

    It can’t be a personal experience that’s convincing only to me and nobody else. Because with my glitchy human brain, that’s more likely to be a problem in my brain than evidence for a god.

    And it certainly doesn’t look like a bunch of self-appointed spokesmen for god, each asserting that they have the one and only Truth™ and all disagreeing with each other. If they ever all got together and got their message into complete agreement, then I might listen. But I’m not holding my breath, because that would be a miracle.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hehehe… Couple of observations here.

      (1) If the Christian God (for example) does exist, then you’re right, it can be taken as true that He knows what it would take for you to believe in Him. But does it then follow that he is obliged to give you that experience?

      (2) “But I know what convincing evidence doesn’t look like. It’s not a bunch of philosophical word games from apologists.” I am not sure how bad evidence, if indeed it is bad, is relevant. What philosophical word games are you referring to?

      (3) “It can’t be a personal experience that’s convincing only to me and nobody else.” What if personal experience is “what you would need” to believe in God as referenced in your first paragraph?

      (4) “[Personal experience] with my glitchy human brain, that’s more likely to be a problem in my brain than evidence for a god.” Then how do you justify believing anything that your brain tells you, including that God does not exist?

      (5) Aren’t you asserting truths that are also exclusive? Why yes, yes you are 😛 (The trademark symbol made be laugh, though – nice touch there)

      (6) What prominent Christian apologists are disagreeing on an essential doctrine of Christianity anyways?

      Like

      1. If a god wants to hide instead of providing evidence, there’s nothing that mere humans can do about that. But what’s the difference between a god that’s hiding and one that doesn’t exist?

        Apologetics are the philosophical word games. If there were any real evidence, you wouldn’t need apologetics.

        Personal experience is not what I would need, because I’m too aware of all the cognitive biases that human brains are subject to. But a real god would know that already.

        I’m not going down the rabbit hole of “you can’t know anything”. Unproductive line of discussion. When something shows up that’s way out of line with everything else we know about the universe, we should not believe it until we’ve had a chance to double-check it, and triple-check it, and see if other people are getting the same answers. And I don’t declare that “god does not exist”. I just have insufficient evidence to persuade me that a god does exist, and rather a lot of evidence pointing toward the gods of human religions being human inventions.

        The only thing I’m asserting is that theists have not sufficiently made their case for the existence of a god. I don’t presume to have any exclusive Truth™, not my department.

        I don’t care about nitpicky points of disagreement among prominent christian apologists, because I’m not just talking about them. It’s them, and the preachers in the pulpits, and the preachers on TV and the evangelical protestant theologians, and the liberal protestant theologians and the Catholic theologians, and the Eastern Orthodox theologians and the Muslim theologians, and the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Sikhs and the Jains and the thousands of religions and tens of thousands of denominations out there today. If humanity can’t come to a consensus on this, why would we think we have the mental capability of reaching any kind of correct answer on this subject?

        Like

        1. Again, what word games are you referring to?

          You know, Apologetics (root word apologia) just means “to make a defense”. So I don’t know what you mean when you say that it wouldn’t be necessary if there was evidence. A defense is needed of evolution – does it follow that evolution is not true? I mean, if it were true it wouldn’t need a defense according to this logic.

          There’s really nothing to debate with here, Ubi. This comment is mostly a complaint against religion, not an argument against it.

          Best wishes to you.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s