Let me get this straight: We don't believe (see details) -- ?

Question

We don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster -- because there's no evidence. We don't believe in the Sasquatch -- because there's no evidence. (No, blurry photos don't count.)

BUT: We should absolutely positively certainly believe in god -- without evidence?

HUH?

Answer 1

Of course. Are you not aware that the Flying Spaghetti Monster rules all? May He bless you with His noodly appendage!

Answer 2

There's more evidence for Sasquatch and Loch Ness Monster than for God.

Answer 3

I'm sure you've heard this before but you believe your television will turn on even though you can't see how it works. You can't actually see the electromagnetic waves that cause your television to work. We know that there are invisible waves that cause the television to work though we can't see them. But we know they're there because well, the television works. A painting is proof there is a painter, a building is proof there is a builder...

I'm not trying to convert you or anything, I'm just saying, that particular logic isn't really relevant because we "believe" in lots of things we don't see. Cell phones, am/fm radio, etc.

Believing in God isn't about having evidence, believing in God is having faith. Once you take a step of faith, there's no going back. You feel it in your soul.

When you die and they cut you open, where will they find where you love? In what organ will they find where you store your hope? Your passions, that feeling you had when you first fell in love? Where will they find your soul?

Answer 4

I agree with others that the absense of proof is not proof.

*BUT*

What I don't understand is that, given that even a Christian must *honestly* admit that it takes a huge leap of faith to believe in something as lacking in proof as the Loch Ness Monster, that atheists are often thought of as immoral, criminals, lost, angry, etc. That is what confuses me.

Answer 5

Evidence means different things to different people. For some of us, evidence means something that has been verified by controlled testing. For others, evidence can be personal experiences. Even though personal experience isn't enough to make something accepted as theory or fact by a large group of people, its certainly enough to affect the everyday lives of us all. We gauge things by our personal experiences all the time.

I'm sure to those people who claim to have seen Nessie or Bigfoot (regardless of whether YOU believe them or not), those things are very real. The idea of alien abduction is very real to some people.

The idea of God is similar ... even the way in which we envision God. Look at the millions of gods and goddesses that have been worshipped throughout history. My father is a Pagan who generally follows the Egyptian pantheon. Even though I am a Christian, his personal experience has led him to view this as truth. Who am I to contradict the personal experience of another?

Answer 6

Even a little bit of time spent browsing past Questions & Answers on this website will provide ample evidence of God. Scores upon scores of books have been written documenting evidence of God. I know it would be just peachy if God would clear some time on His calendar just to come and convince YOU, and then a few minutes for every other non-believer while He's at it....but then you wouldn't need any faith because you'd already have absolute proof of the truth. Wouldn't choosing to obey God be a no-brainer then? That's sort of the point...there is evidence enough for those who truly seek God, for the rest there is a perpetual blindness to the truth (self imposed, by the way).

Answer 7

Sure there is evidence:

1) life: atheists say it came from a universe that has no life of its own, theists say it came from someone who is the Life;
2) intelligence: atheists say its a byproduct of atoms that have no intelligence, theists say it came from an intelligent being;
3) order: atheists say it arose out of chaos, theists say it came from a rational being;
4) information: atheists say DNA was encoded by a random process, theists say it was created by, well, an intelligent being (ok, I am starting to repeat myself... but I am sure I could go on if I thought about it some more).

By no means am I claiming that this is proof that God exists, but which is more likely: that all of these things (and more) came from something that does not have them to give (sort of like getting blood from a turnip) or that they came from something that had them to share?

Answer 8

There is evidence of God. Let me guide you through this reasoning:

Names of places--like America, Philippines, etc--are derived from real people. Further these names validate the events that happened to those persons. Example: That Amerigo Vispucci discovered America and that place was named after him. The name of this place--america also validates that Amerigo was an explorer.

Israel is an existing nation named after Jacob whose name was changed to Israel by God. The name Israel means 'one who contended w/ both men and God.

Therefore, just as certain places like America, and Phil. indicate the reality of the person and their exploits ( from whom these places derived their name), Israel indicates the reality of Jacob and the one who changed his name--God.

To argue otherwise, would be unreasonable. Because why would you believe Amerigo Vispucci as a person who once existed, and not God who changed Jacob's name?

Answer 9

Nope

Answer 10

You can say what tou want about no evidence, but what about the miracles, the Church, the Bible, and all the love we share with each other. Where else would that come from if there was no God?