Evidence for God?

[chakka35]

In two other threads on this site mallymooface has claimed that there is evidence for God, on one occasion even saying "there is plenty of physical evidence for God".
She also asks whether I can produce proof that God doesn't exist. Taking them in order:

The first one is easy from my end: what evidence do you have, mallymooface, for God's existence? I don't mean faith or personal conviction; I mean evidence - your word.

As to the second (that old chestnut) the fact that one cannot prove the non-existence of unnatural things that people have mooted does not support the truth of them.
I am sure that I cannot disprove the existence of unicorns, magic carpets, Elwood P Dowd's invisible white rabbit called 'Harvey' or shoe-mending elves, but does that inability of mine add to their credibility? If so, then anyone can invent any crazy thing and then sit back smugly and say "You disprove it!"
It is for those who claim incredible things to prove them, or at least provide evidence that the rest of us can chase up.

[Theland]

Imagine coming home from work and finding that your house had been completely redecorated, and your family had no idea how it happened. Would you simply write it off as, "spontaneous decoration," and enjoy the benefits of your new surroundings, or would you, as I would, hold the view that someBODY had been responsible for bestowing this blessing on you?
So ....... the universe in which we live is a bit more complicated than decorating a house ............

[keyplus90]

Theland has given you a good example. Although I am sure it will not convince you but I will try another one very simple. Do you know who made the keyboard you are using to type here. Or simply do you believe that it just appeared from nowhere. I do not think you would say that. Then do you consider all of these things in the universe known or unknown to us just appeared from nowhere or someone put an effort in it. Someone said If you are looking for God with sincere and open heart then he is just where you are. But if you are trying to look for him because by not being able to see him or feel him you would mock the idea, then he will make you go round and round in the circles and you will never find him. Because God is far from fulfilling our these petty desires. People have to have an appointment to see their bank manager and not many here even if desire would be able to shake hands with Queen. And she is just a human being who I personally would not even give that much importance. And it amazes me when they refuse to accept God only because they can not se him. If he will start appearing whenever any Harry, Dick and John will demand him to then he is not God, perhaps Ginni of the lamp, or you may call him a waiter at the local Pizza Hut.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Are His social skills actually up to waitering at Pizza Hut?

[naomi24]

Microsoft made my keyboard - and it came from their factory via PC World.

I wouldn't mock the idea of belief in this God under any circumstances. When people are indoctrinated, they lose the ability to rationalise, and that is not a mocking matter.

Apologies, Chakka. I've offered no proof, so not very helpful to your question, I guess.

[Theland]

"Here we go round the mulberry bush .... "

[naomi24]

Lovely voice Theland. Not aiming at Luna's job, I trust.?

Back to the subject in hand, if you please.

I'm off to bed. Night everyone. More tomorrow. x

[Theland]

....... or chakka comes home from work and his house is ransacked and everything of value is gone.
When P.C. Plod arrives, he laughs at chakkas suggestion that a burglar was responsible, and says that as chakka didn't see anybody, he may as well blame Elwood P Dowds invisible white rabbit called, 'Harvey,' or shoe mending elves who had gone on a bender.
Chakka is having none of this and asks Plod if he has ever seen anything like this before.
Plod answers that he has, that it happens all of the time, and some people like chakka, just have to hold somebody responsible, when in fact, it is just another case of spontaneous destruction, it just happens now and again.
"Look here Mr. Chakka," says Plod, "If the whole universe came into being as a spontaneous act of creation, with nobody responsible for it, why is it not unreasonable to accept that parts of that same universe, are also subject to sudden catastrophic acts of creation and destruction?"
Chakka is very angry with P.C.Plod and reports the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, because although he can't prove it, he knows in his heart that someBODY was responsible.

[keyplus90]

Theland - You have given few very profound examples. But I know few people here are just determined to See God. And I am sure one day their desires will be fulfilled, but unfortunately it will be too late.

[chakka35]

Yes, all jolly fine rhetoric while we wait for mallymooface to bring us the evidence she claims to have.

Mind you, I don't mind accepting evidence from anyone else who has some. And please remember that argument and analogy is not evidence.

[jake-the-peg]

Come on Theland this argument is 300 years old

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analog y

It was an OK argument then but it's a bit weak now!

Besides I can make the same argument for God's creator.

God is so complex and un knowable wouldn't you conclude he must have been carefull created in the same way?

Turtles!

[Theland]

Jake, we either accept a first cause, or it really is turtles.

[jake-the-peg]

Alternatively you can try to get a grip on the nature of time and come to terms with the idea that time had a "begining".

[Theland]

Is it not a fact that our law courts have successfully prosecuted people and put them away for a long time on the basis of no hard evidence, but an overwhelming quantity of circumstantial evidence?
So in the question about God, is circumstantial evidence allowed in this debate?

[Theland]

I accept that time had a beginning.
I accept that space is infinite.
I cannot accept that all of this, "effect," had no cause.

[keyplus90]

I can understand what Jake is trying to say. But in that case if you carry on joining the chain together that who created what. Somewhere you will have to agree about the last piece of the chain, and that is God. Unless you want to join the last piece with the first one and make a circle. That is what few people have done and since then they are going round and round in circles and just can not find the end bit.

[keyplus90]

Here comes my friend Wizard, Honestly I was thinking that I had not seen you for few days. Every thing is Ok mate.

[Theland]

Good point wizard. However, I'm talking about the fact that courts still accept circumstantial evidence if it is overwhelming, and their appeals are turned down after evidence is sifted again.

[meredith101]

Even if it turned out to be the case that all effects have to have causes, why for one moment does this have to be an Infinite Personal Power, what we know you mean by 'God'? Your father was the cause of you (the effect), that doesn't mean that every time you see some big effect (the universe) with things you can't explain (order, life, intelligence) that there was a similar Big Daddy who wished it into being and now takes care of it all. In fact...there's no reason AT ALL to support the assumption that what brought about the universe is in any way analogous to the way things work within the universe. In fact, since we know that much of what is in the universe (space, time) came about at the same time as the universe itself (ie it has no beginning in space or time), I think you're pretty hard pushed to talk of any thing being around to cause it in any way that actually means anything.
Aquinas: 'we see effects: they have causes' 'The world is an effect: it must have a cause'. Well....there was no SPACE or TIME for that cause to work in, so are you sure you still want to push the analogy????
Besides, many things occur with no discernable cause (probably because there is none?), such as particles and antiparticles just swooping in out of nowhere and then swooping back into oblivion.
Usual old argument then, non-deists approaching it one way (the ONLY way to approach an argument, saying 'well, I don't know, let's see the argument for and against), and the deists saying 'I reckon there's a god, now let's see if I can start contorting reality in a desperate attempt to show what I assume to be the case'.
Whatever next? Now you're going to tell me you were an alcoholic and you could not have got out of it without the grace of god.