Hard evidence of God

[Dad]

Atheists and agnostics want evidence for God.

What sort of evidence would convince? And what sort of evidence would deists like to see?

Dad.

[Aaron]

The fact that something rather than nothing exists is enough for me.

[Bearcub]

There isn't any hard evidence for God. I'm a Deist because I think it is more likely that there is a God rather than that there isn't.

I could try to explain my reasoning to an atheist or agnostic, but it would take too long. And besides, they would just try to poke holes in every concept I tried to explain to them.

You can try I guess. Here are a few ideas that make me believe that it is more likely there is a God, rather than that there isn't.

- The universe is nearly perfectly imbalanced and balanced to allow for the growth of senient beings.
- There are people who claim to be reincarnated and have found evidence to that effect.
- We have a moon.
- Some people have felt things have happened to someone they loved and then have gotten confirmation.
- God answers my questions. Could just be intuition, but then it could be God.
- Proteins can change the genetic make up of our offspring because of some of our experiences.

Well, that is all I can think of off the top of my head.

As far as evidence I would like to see, I have enough evidence. If others cannot see the evidence, then maybe they are just not ready to know that there is a God. Reality can be pretty fightening.

[InGinouity]

agnostics want evidence for God.

I don't think that is true, atleast not for me. I do not ask for hard evidence, as I simply do not know what that kind of evidence would consist of. I also feel that there is a big chance that that evidence will never come to us. It does not bother me anymore, it used to, but I got over that. I love life as is and if that's all there is, that is enough.

I consider myself an agnostic with deist tendancies. I suspect there is something, but I do not know what and how. I do not believe it has anything of how revealed religion sees it. I understand that is what they would want it to be like, as it is within their comfort zone, but considering the whole, a god like the bible, torah or koran god does not make any sense to me. buddhism is not a religion, but I have the same issues with that and with hinduism. I believe that rather than cultures adapting to their gods, the gods have been adapted to the cultures.

Ginou

[cclendenen]

As long as we can conceive of perfection, we can conceive of God. Our notions of God represent that concept of perfection. So, from that perspective, God exists (as a concept). God is an ideal, the ideal. Every culture has religion. We have (most of us) evolved with some undefined, but definite urge to believe in something greater than ourselves. Our notions of God help us fulfill that spiritual need.

Most Deists believe there is a God, a God who does not interfere in daily life or perform miracles or violate the laws of nature (laws the Deity probably created in the first place). The practical difference between that kind of God and no God at all is no real difference at all. A God who does not intervene or interact with us is no different, no more perceptible nor provable, than a God who does not exist. A difference that makes no difference is no difference, so I don't waste a lot of effort trying to prove the unprovable.

I care whether people believe in God, and I am willing to expend some energy explaining what I believe and why. I care more, however, how you act towards me than I care about your concept of the Deity.

To me the distinction between believing in a Deist God or no God at all is found in our attitudes towards life. I find it convenient to think of God as the source of all things, because if there is an intelligence behind creation, it could very well mean that things have been created and set up so that they can work. If it can work, then by God, I'll figure out a way to make it work. If there is no reason for existence, and it's all just pure chance that things turned out this way, then what is the point? Believing the universe was created based on laws and principles we can eventually understand by a God who set it all up to work is a slightly saner universe than a completely random one.

My concept of God works for me. I hope everyone finds a concept that works for them. As far as atheists and agnostics are concerned, I try to explain it my way. My way doesn't need evidence. It is an attitude thing. I will offer my opinion, but I will not tell them how to think. In return I expect them to have the same respect for my beliefs. If I am deluded, then so what? I like my delusions!

[stretmediq]

To me the evidence lies in how the world behaves. Things like virtual particles, quantum leaps and superpositions, and curved space/time, make no sense from a materialistic point of view but are perfectly understandable from an idealistic one because they are mathematically consistent. So in my opinion the world is not something that obeys mathematical rules it is mathematics- manifest.

[Dad]

These are wonderful replies. I salute you all. Can we take it that there is no potential evidence that could prove to all humans once and for all time that there is a God? If this is so I suggest it is used to ask critics "What evidence would convince you and everybody else?"

Dad.

[Bearcub]

In answer to Dad's questions, yes.

[stretmediq]

I think the question should be what does the preponderance of the evidence we have suggest? Because we have no absolute knowledge of anything except our own individual existence.

[CraigC]

The fact that something rather than nothing exists is enough for me.

To me the evidence lies in how the world behaves. Things like virtual particles, quantum leaps and superpositions, and curved space/time, make no sense from a materialistic point of view but are perfectly understandable from an idealistic one because they are mathematically consistent.

I agree with Aaron and Stret. It is enough for me that something exists, and it exists behaving within incredibly complex physical and mathematical rules that didn't just always exist.

However, I don't think most people take the time to think about it and see it this way. It's a lot easier for most to just say "you prove it to me". I would ask the agnostic and the atheist "how could all this be without a rule maker".

Diverging, I'm not sold on cclendenen's statement that God is perfect. I just don't know. ( Sounds Agnostic doesn't it). I can imagine God making up the physical and mathematical rules via trial and error. That idea is worth some more pondering.

[InGinouity]

"how could all this be without a rule maker"

It could be above and beyond the concept "rulemaker" I'm sorry, I was going to come up with something more elaborate and profound, but I have come down with shingles

Ginou

[Nada]

Sorry to hear that, I hope you get them back on the roof where they belong. Sorry, I could not help myself. Get well soon.