" There is no evidence for God " . Really ?!!

" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god

Is Theism irrational because God's existence cannot be empirically proven ?

on atheism, evidence does not matter, and proves nothing since you are a moist robot who evolved predetermined to follow chemical/electrical causal effects back to the beginning of time, thus you are not reasoning, but reacting in a brain where perception is reality. Additionally, in a randomly produced universe, there is no good reason to think that anything follows an ordered pattern, so evidence is futile, since nothing would be reliable. Additionally, if you came from nothing for no reason at all and you will descend to the same, then existence is utterly futile, so even if truth could be known, which it wouldn't, then it is trivially unimportant. So you insistence on having evidence for anything betrays atheism, but would only be applicable on theism. But on theism there are only 3 major religions, all of which in part or fully rely on the Bible in some way, which gives you a problem. Since atheism can't be true since the universe shows evidence of true design (qualities consistent with design, evidence of purpose, planning, interrelated parts that harmonize to produce some effect not consistent with chance and so forth) and since the universe had a true beginning, which needs a transcendent cause, then naturalism, a presupposition of atheism is false, making atheism false. Pantheism and polytheism suffer from some similar maladies and deism is non sequitur and illogical, making theism the only logical option to comprehensively explain the sum or our existence. Christianity then by default, is very much in the running for being true, since it is 1 of the main 3 on theism. With this strong historical evidence for Jesus and the resurrection, we have enough evidence to justify its validity. Text by Steven Guzzi 

One of the most common seen arguments to justify unbelief in deities by atheists is the claim that theists must prove Gods existence empirically in order for them to believe. It goes usually as follows:

Argument: There is no empirical proof for Gods existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the theist's side. If they claim God exists, they have to prove it.
Answer: This is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

The seeker must also be willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. He needs to be willing to put all his prejudices and bias aside as much as possible, and permit an entirely and exclusively rational approach, based on scientific reasoning and logic, that is, doing the observation, elaborating a hypothesis, testing when possible, and getting well-based and rationally justifiable conclusions. When dealing with the observation of the natural world, the question is, what mechanism explains best the origin of X. That is not the same as to ask, how something works, which is what empirical science deals with. That helps and advances the question of how something came to be when its mechanistic ( physicochemical ) working is known, and what contributes to that. Back in Darwins time, 150 years ago, there was no knowledge about the complexity of the biochemical reality, intracellular action and molecular world. Today, we have advanced understanding on that, and every day that passes, that knowledge adds up.  

The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explains our existence. There are basically just two options. Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful creative agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it. All answers can be divided in this two basic options and categories. While the atheist affirms, no God was required, the theist claims, God is necessary. Some atheists have argued that the can be many explanations, we just do not know them yet. I disagree. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. 

The next step a seeker needs to elucidate is: What signs point to design, rather than non-design? What can be clearly attributed to the action of a conscious intelligent agency? ( or agencies - plural ? ) Then he has to move forward to actually understand how our natural world works. The better understanding and education, the better. Unfortunately, this is a huge hurdle, and many are too lazy to spend time to actually understand the natural world and prefer to see what fits best what they want, and then search for who provides the answers they want to be true ( bias is a big factor contributing to self-delusion ). That is a common approach by atheists. They prefer to rely on the claims of the four horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Dennet, Shermer and Harris, and the pope of all, Darwin, rather than spending time and looking into the evidence by themselves. All they do, behaving in that manner, is disrespecting themselves, putting their souls at risk to be deluded by their own wishes and faulty approach, and if they are wrong, losing their eternity with God.

A smart epistemological approach about origins of our existence goes as this:

1. Asking: what is ? what exists? Answer: X
2. Asking: what are the possible mechanisms to explain the origin of X? Answer: Y and Z ( and eventually, other causes )
3. Is X better explained by Y or Z?
4. Concluding Y or Z, depending on where the evidence leads to.
5. Moving forward, and trying to identify as accurately as possible the precise identity of the cause, if it is an intelligent agent.

6. Number 1 and 2 is a continuing exercise of science, philosophy, and theology. Upon the advance of understanding, the conclusion is eventually re-evaluated, and changed, if sufficient reasons exist.  

Upon my understanding, intelligent design/creationism tops naturalism - materialism as best case-adequate answer in regards to origins:

125 reasons to believe in God
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

A cumulative case for the God of the bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-god-of-the-bible

" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god

============================================================================================================================================

In our search for God, where we start will often determine where we end. If you search for God only to show yourself that He is not there, then you will not find Him. But if you seek him like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.

"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10

Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world?these questions ARE in my view best explained through creations and ARE therefore evidence for creationism, and intelligent design. There are just personal preferences of explanations and world views for all that exists.  So rather than say, there is no evidence for God, you should say: Intelligent design and creationism and theism are not my preferred explanations, for whatever reasons.

We could ask the question "Is there evidence that God exists?" and we could mean "Is it reasonable to think that God exists?" 2In other words, are there pieces of evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that God exists even if the evidence is not completely conclusive and utterly compelling?

You're not actually talking about evidence, you're talking about an interpretation of the evidence. As in, there is no evolutionary interpretation of the evidence which supports creation. This equivocation is used to deny any interpretation of the evidence which does not support evolution, which is exactly what a creation interpretation of the evidence does.

So, to remove the interpretation, let's look at the first claim in the Bible: that God created the earth and the universe. Surely you would agree the earth and the universe exist. Therefore there certainly is evidence outside of the Bible. Of course, your response will be that it's only a claim in the Bible that God did it. That's fine, but it's beside the point. The point is that the existence of the earth is the actual evidence. How the earth came to be, whether through special creation or through stellar evolution, is a matter of interpretation of the evidence.

There is no evidence for God’s existence. 2 
There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.

One often hears, “there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales,” (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, “there is no physical proof of God’s being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all ‘real’ things are physical).”

The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God – as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe – does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims. Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.

This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.

However, if what they mean is something more like, “There is no logical evidence of God’s existence…” then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall. The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them. They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheist’s argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical. Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: “Why can’t there be a physical explanation of existence? Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence.” The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, the entity is God. His absolute “existence” is more real than physical existence by order of priority.

But besides logical arguments, an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God. There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God. On these matters Kierkegaard had it right – in objectivity, there is no truth for the single individual; the truth is subjectivity.




1. http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/RightQuestions.htm
2. https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/

No Evidence for God? 1



I often encounter atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God.
Question: Is this true?
A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding no.
No one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of a supreme being.  Yet, arm chair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement is.
Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God.  Gee – End of discussion right there – if they were honest, but they are not.
What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists – its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.
It is simply not – by any means – a logical or justifiable claim.   Why?  Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own claim!  He can’t offer any justification for such a stupendous claim, therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no evidence for God.  Can he? No, of course not.
The atheist positing such thus puts himself in the exact same position that he claims theists are in! Claiming that which cannot be proved.  This is hardly surprising since atheists also vehemently and religiously claim there is no God all while admitting they can’t prove a negative!
His position implies that he has indeed searched out and deeply examined all proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking.   Of course there are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidences that may exist for God, nor even of all proposed evidences since this would require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that atheists cannot uphold.
To truly know there is zero evidence for God’s existence implies that the atheist claiming this knows all possible evidences for God’s existence.   No single human being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this, thus all such flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant pretensions to unavailable knowledge.
That in itself destroys all claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God.  It also demonstrates what every theist knows – that atheists are almost invariably arrogant blowhards making foolish claims they cannot back up.

Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God. 
 It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause.  Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever,  are wrong.  This has never been done by anyone, ever.
Moreover, claiming that any proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in fact wrong or insufficient.   Worse, even if one were able to truly refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no God.  There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence, etc.
Atheist Kai Nielsen stated,

“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” – Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.

The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on.  What do we see instead?  Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof.  Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always,  denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist.  False.  What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.  Thus, as Ravi Zacharias states,

“the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence”.

The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”.  But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism.  If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof!  Is there evidence that no God exists? No.  None whatsoever.
Is there evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists is evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the laws of cause and effect! (Quantum theories notwithstanding).  To say a singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is to say “we have no idea what started it all”!  Fluctuation of what? etc.

Consider the following evidence, for example:
Information is evidence of God.  Information itself is metaphysical.  Logic is metaphysical.  Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical!  But atheists claim there is no such thing as a “metaphysical” something.  All is matter and energy.
Thus atheism is little different than insanity, for claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that information doesn’t exist! So where does the atheist get this tasty bit of information?!
We know information is metaphysical because it is always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information.  It’s just a dye.  Ink on paper, by the way it’s used and structured to form symbols that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol systems imply metaphysics and intelligence.  The collective symbols, by the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code, used.
Again, the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain.  They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels encode information that requires a mind – a mind that has been taught the symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) – to interpret it. That information is not random – it isn’t a meaningless blotch – but is structured and semantic.  It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and purpose.  No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.
Encoded algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system be such as the English or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of DNA.  Such symbol systems cannot exist without intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the DNA molecule.
That intelligence – given its complexity, depth and intricacy – is best and most simply (Occam’s Razor) explained by what men have always called “God”.  The Intelligent originator.

1) https://borne.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/no-evidence-for-god/

I promise you this, friend. You will find out for sure one day, and when you do, you better hope to God that we are all a bunch lunatics following fairy tales; because if we aren't, this matter is deadly serious, and you will be shown to be a rebellious and hateful fool before the entire world, before eating the consequences of your indignation against the One who gave you life and breath and everything. I sincerely hope that does not happen to you.

The fact is that Atheism is dead. Your belief is truly wishful thinking and is not supported by evidence or logic. Materialism may be one of the most willfully ignorant philosophies man has ever cooked up. The fact is that something with causal power and intelligence is responsible for reality as we encounter it - and deep down you know this truth. Every man does.

Deep down you know He exists, and you hate Him. It is far easier to go into denial over His existence than try to deal with a life in the knowledge of a deity which you despise.

Atheism reduces the dignity of the individual to cosmic accidents rather than deliberately created beings. Our feelings don't determine truth, of course - but if we all acted according to the atheistic philosophy with consistency, every last one of us would be Hitler.

Either there is a God and life is meaningful, or there isn't and life has no intrinsic value. That your emotions say the latter isn't right should be your first clue that you are being deceived.

Argument: There is no empirical proof for Gods existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 
Answer: There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. 
The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right response does not need an empirical demonstration of Gods existence
but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explains our existence. There are basically just two options.
Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful creative agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it. 
All answers can be divided in this two basic options and categories.

Design can be tested using scientific logic.  How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so 
we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable.  Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a
feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design.  And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased
by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.


Following a list of positive evidence of Gods existence, not depending on gaps or lack of knowledge. 


1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
2. Laws of physics. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
3. Fine-Tuning. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right.
4. Formation of life. Life comes only from non-life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible
5. Cells are factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.
6. Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
7. Appearance of design. Biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed. 
8. Codified Information. DNA stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be tracked back to intelligence
9. The Fossil Record. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of thousands of lifeforms, without intermediates. 
10. Consciousness and language. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from matter
11. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
12. The Bible. The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
13. Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts. 
13. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
14. The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
15. End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occuring in front of our eyes. New world order, microchip implant etc.
16. After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.