Evidence?

[Gman]

so basically there isn't really any hard evidence for god

Just google Israel and the Bible... G-d is always concerned with the development and establishment of Israel and His people. Psalm 132:13-14

Which is why it is always in our news today. So you want proof? Watch Israel..

[PaulSacramento]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

[RickD]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

Absolutely, Paul.

And sometimes things we think aren't as important, are more important to others.

[PaulSacramento]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

Absolutely, Paul.

And sometimes things we think aren't as important, are more important to others.

Yes, 100% and it is important to respect that.
Some people came to God via a personal experience and that is the ONLY thing that would bring them to God.
For someone to say that personal revelation is unacceptable evidence is simply wrong because while it may not be for THEM, it certainly was for the other.

[Byblos]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

Absolutely, Paul.

And sometimes things we think aren't as important, are more important to others.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true at all. Either a set of propositions can be shown as true and valid or they don't, there's no opinion or subjectivity in the matter.

[PaulSacramento]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

Absolutely, Paul.

And sometimes things we think aren't as important, are more important to others.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true at all. Either a set of propositions can be shown as true and valid or they don't, there's no opinion or subjectivity in the matter.

Whether God could be explained by reason or not never mattered to me too much.
Whether God did all those miracles or not never mattered to me.
What did matter to me was IF God was indeed a Personal God, that I could have a personal relationship with God.
Until THAT happened, no other evidence would do it for me.
I don't think we can say that one form of evidence is superior to another.
People need different evidence to believe.

[Byblos]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

Absolutely, Paul.

And sometimes things we think aren't as important, are more important to others.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true at all. Either a set of propositions can be shown as true and valid or they don't, there's no opinion or subjectivity in the matter.

Whether God could be explained by reason or not never mattered to me too much.
Whether God did all those miracles or not never mattered to me.
What did matter to me was IF God was indeed a Personal God, that I could have a personal relationship with God.
Until THAT happened, no other evidence would do it for me.
I don't think we can say that one form of evidence is superior to another.
People need different evidence to believe.

On the personal relationship with God as internal evidence I would agree totally. On the question of God's existence (and I would contend that's where most unbelievers start, before they get to the question of personal relationship), there are no degrees of 'evidences', there is proof from reason and it is undeniable.

[RickD]

If one thing this thread has shown and will show is this:
Different people need different types of evidence.

This is and always has been the case.

Absolutely, Paul.

And sometimes things we think aren't as important, are more important to others.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true at all. Either a set of propositions can be shown as true and valid or they don't, there's no opinion or subjectivity in the matter.

Is that your opinion?

[Silvertusk]

so basically there isn't really any hard evidence for god

Well there is the cosmological argument, the teological arguments, the moral argument, the evidence of the resurrection, the argument from contingency, the evidence from personal experiences to name a few.

[cnk12]

Any one piece of evidence on its own is insufficient.

The case for God doesn't become clear until one considers the whole case. I'm reading a book someone on this site recommended, call "Cold Case Christianity". It's written by a former Atheist homicide detective who likens the case for God to the frequent circumstantial cases they build against the accused. It's an interesting book and for me hits the nail on the head with its contention that you can't make a case with one piece of evidence.

But, if I had to answer your question the way you asked it, I like this answer by WannaLearn the best.

Creation the way everything was made and how everything works together, down to the smallest thing like atoms, Cells, and DNA. How far the earth is from the sun, the big bang( what started that explosion when nothing was here something just does not create itself. Look around outside how beautiful things are and all the different laws in science. This world is your evidence. So this tells you something had to create everything (A God)and something can not come from nothing it is proven in science.

[Jac3510]

Any one piece of evidence on its own is insufficient.

The case for God doesn't become clear until one considers the whole case. I'm reading a book someone on this site recommended, call "Cold Case Christianity". It's written by a former Atheist homicide detective who likens the case for God to the frequent circumstantial cases they build against the accused. It's an interesting book and for me hits the nail on the head with its contention that you can't make a case with one piece of evidence.

But, if I had to answer your question the way you asked it, I like this answer by WannaLearn the best.

Creation the way everything was made and how everything works together, down to the smallest thing like atoms, Cells, and DNA. How far the earth is from the sun, the big bang( what started that explosion when nothing was here something just does not create itself. Look around outside how beautiful things are and all the different laws in science. This world is your evidence. So this tells you something had to create everything (A God)and something can not come from nothing it is proven in science.

That's partially true. The way apologetics tends to be done today--following an ID approach--that's right. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I suppose. When you look at the KCA, fine-tuning arguments, the moral arguments, the resurrection--the things ST mentioned above (there many more--Kreeft has a page that has twenty arguments for God's existence, and I know several not on his list--then you have a pretty compelling case overall.

On the flip side, the approach to all of these is rather probablistic. That resonates with people because that's the basic way science works. It allows for inductive certainly, which can be very high and certainly reliable. But it's never demonstrated. Yet there are arguments for God that are shear demonstrations, things that must be true. We tend not to use them because they require such heavy use of philosophy. They aren't very effective from a pragmatic perspective in convincing people that God exists, but that's just because unbelievers are very unlikely to invest the time and effort to do all the requisite study to grasp the terms of the arguments.

If you want just one such example, I would highly recommend two books to you, both by Joseph Owens: An Interpretation of Existence and An Elementary Christian Metaphysics. Mind you that both are difficult reads, but this is a difficult subject. Slighly less difficult but still helpful here are the works of Edward Feser, which people have seen me recommend before, especially Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide and the (too) polemical The Last Superstition. I've also explained in some detail one such argument (Aquinas' First Way) [url=http://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2 ... licity.pdf] (see pp. 8-47).

[Danieltwotwenty]

Creation the way everything was made and how everything works together, down to the smallest thing like atoms, Cells, and DNA. How far the earth is from the sun, the big bang( what started that explosion when nothing was here something just does not create itself. Look around outside how beautiful things are and all the different laws in science. This world is your evidence. So this tells you something had to create everything (A God)and something can not come from nothing it is proven in science.

Check out the Shroud Of Turin. and see what you think of the story (Heaven is For real ). It's A Near Death experience.

The big bang has never described a starting point to anything but our observable universe, simple logic however describes an arena that is far, far from nothingness!
Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought.... Lets indulge it and wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness.... More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time.... If a universe could 'spring' from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This is just small scale view to something that logically, there is no point of origin.
Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe'.

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

We all know you have a belief in an infinite void, we believe that void is God creator. You see a small narrow sliver of what he is, we see a clearer (not perfect) picture.

[cnk12]

That's partially true. The way apologetics tends to be done today--following an ID approach--that's right. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I suppose. When you look at the KCA, fine-tuning arguments, the moral arguments, the resurrection--the things ST mentioned above (there many more--Kreeft has a page that has twenty arguments for God's existence, and I know several not on his list--then you have a pretty compelling case overall.

On the flip side, the approach to all of these is rather probablistic. That resonates with people because that's the basic way science works. It allows for inductive certainly, which can be very high and certainly reliable. But it's never demonstrated. Yet there are arguments for God that are shear demonstrations, things that must be true. We tend not to use them because they require such heavy use of philosophy. They aren't very effective from a pragmatic perspective in convincing people that God exists, but that's just because unbelievers are very unlikely to invest the time and effort to do all the requisite study to grasp the terms of the arguments.

If you want just one such example, I would highly recommend two books to you, both by Joseph Owens: An Interpretation of Existence and An Elementary Christian Metaphysics. Mind you that both are difficult reads, but this is a difficult subject. Slighly less difficult but still helpful here are the works of Edward Feser, which people have seen me recommend before, especially Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide and the (too) polemical The Last Superstition. I've also explained in some detail one such argument (Aquinas' First Way) [url=http://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2 ... licity.pdf] (see pp. 8-47).

Thanks for the book reference; I'm checking them out.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Any one piece of evidence on its own is insufficient.

The case for God doesn't become clear until one considers the whole case. I'm reading a book someone on this site recommended, call "Cold Case Christianity". It's written by a former Atheist homicide detective who likens the case for God to the frequent circumstantial cases they build against the accused. It's an interesting book and for me hits the nail on the head with its contention that you can't make a case with one piece of evidence.

But, if I had to answer your question the way you asked it, I like this answer by WannaLearn the best.

Creation the way everything was made and how everything works together, down to the smallest thing like atoms, Cells, and DNA. How far the earth is from the sun, the big bang( what started that explosion when nothing was here something just does not create itself. Look around outside how beautiful things are and all the different laws in science. This world is your evidence. So this tells you something had to create everything (A God)and something can not come from nothing it is proven in science.

It's a good book and really helped me in understanding how to examine evidence, it got me looking at evolution in a different light as well as the case for the authenticity of the Gospels.

[Metacrock]

so basically there isn't really any hard evidence for god

There's no hard evidence for naturism/physicalism/materilism. they can't even prove that reality is material and not idealist. The little atheist game of "there's no empirical proof" is just a diversion, a front. It doesn't mean anything. The real questoin is warrant not proof. We can't have proof of something that is the basis of reality. It's not basic and too transcendent to get any kind of direct fix. That's like trying to learn if you are on an Island or a continent when you can't see the other side of the land.

If you have a good reason to assume one or the other than you have something to work with.

When you bar for God arguments at the level of warrant a whole of bunch of them pay off.

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/listGodarguments.html