Ok, so there's no actual, objective evidence for the existence of any god?

Question

and outside of a few claims of personal connection with various deities and their messages, we've just got a few texts that claim to speak for one god or another.
What makes the existence of your personal deity even remotely likely?

Answer 1

I hope you get a good answer from this,
I want to know the same thing

But most likely you get a bunch of B.S. that don't make any sense

Answer 2

How can anyone say there is no evidence? My goodness. If you walked into a crime scene and found a dead body, blood all over the floor, the room in shambles, and a bloody knife hidden under the rug, would you say it was just random chance, or would you say someone had been murdered?
How can you look at the earth around us and not understand that it was designed by God? If you sit and watch the science channel, or the Discovery channel, and you learn the complexities of our planet, the complexities of the universe, the number of variables necessary for life to even EXIST on this planet, then add to that the complexity of the human body, the amount of brain cells you have in your brain and the miracle of how you can retain so much information when an animal cannot- how can you possible say this is all random chance? Someone had to design it. The evidence that somebody has been putting together a masterpiece of living organisms, landscaping, mighty oceans and mountains, placed in a universe so immensely vast you can't imagine it is astounding. All this could not just "HAPPEN". It is too perfectly matched to be random. Look at the evidence around you. If a cop can figure out a murder took place with just half a dozen clues, then you should be able to figure out there's a God with the 50 trillion clues He left behind when He created the universe.

Answer 3

I could use the whole "gravity is a theory" argument--that if you can see the effects but not the cause that means the cause must exist...but there are so many more reasons to believe (for me, at least) that it's not necessary.
--the perfection of the earth and the improbability of chance...the scientific community agrees that the Big Bang and primordial soup theories still don't cover the ordered nature of the universe.
--even if you think we're nuts, there are a TON of people who believe in God, and that's a fact that's hard to ignore...how could so many people have experienced the same love and presence and call it by the same name were it to be coincidence or fake?
--Jesus of Nazareth himself historically existed, and the accounts of his miracles in the Bible have more archaeological proof of their validity than many of Plato's writings
--the power of prayer! It is a proven fact that those who have others praying for them recover more quickly...God is out there, and He is listening to His people...and come on, tell me you've /never/ prayed for something and gotten some form of an answer? That I do find hard to believe!
Anyway, this is just my take on it...sure, it's fallible, but so are all the arguments for saying that God DOESN'T exist...and when in doubt, consider Pascal's wager. :-)

Answer 4

First, the existence of God is not subject to logical positivism, because a transcendent being does not leave physical evidence. But before yout take that too far, remember that the same principle holds true for any theory about history, and any scientific theory that is not a law. Arguments for the existence of God are based on reason. And there are many of them. Over one third of philosophy professors are theists, because they have reviewed the logical arguments for God and considered them valid enough to substantiate a belief in his existence.

The problem you've got here is two-fold. First, it is a straw man. You assume that arguments for the existence of God are based on personal experiences and ancient religious texts. That isn't true. Neither of those factor into classical apologetics or traditional philosophical arguments for the existence of God. There is a whole world of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and many of them require a good 2 years of education in philosophy and logic before you can really appreciate them.

The other problem is that you are applying selective positivism. You demand scientific proof for the existence of God, but you are content to accept rational arguments (without proof) for 99% of what you already believe. Case in point. You can't use modal logic to argue that George Washington existed as a matter of logical necessity. All you have to prove that he existed are personal accounts, old texts, and hearsay. But I seriously doubt that you question his existence. Now, that doesn't mean that you should accept the existence of God. But you should not reject the existence of God simply because you have no scientific proof. Rather, you should apply consistent reasoning, weigh all arguments by the same criteria, and then make your decision.

Oh, I should address the "your deity" thing. You may labor under the misconception that there are many different deities out there, and that any arguments for the existence of God do not specify *which* God. That isn't actually true. Essentially, there is God, and there are gods. God, with a capital G, goes by many names, but the description of the Supreme Being is consistent from religion to religion. He is the Creator, First Cause, source of Being, exists by necessity, is essentially transcendent, etc. "god" on the other hand, are typically defined in antropomorphic terms, and are simply glorified elements of the natural world. They are not typically described as First Cause, Creator (ex nihilo), source of Being, or as necessary beings. As such, they do fall under the umbralla of classical theistic arguments.

Answer 5

My conception of god is based on my personal experience...besides I dont see atheists coming up with any better ideas about existence, Like...can there be one beginning to all existence. Where did energy itself come from? I dont see science ever answering all questions. I was once an atheist myself b4 acid....with acid I could sense much more then I could even imagine. I see god as the transcended energy in which all in existence comes from...the one energy that beyond space, time, and the material world...everything and everyone is a part of this energy...so in the end all is really infact one and the 'self' is illusion

Answer 6

But what you think about it doesn't matter to those who believe. You have to accept the fact that they believe just as you expect them to accept the fact that you don't.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Answer 7

I have evidence, but I'm waiting for Josh X to accept my challenge.

(Since when does a personal relationship NOT constitute evidence? From my point of view, daily conversations over a period of decades is about as good as it gets as far as proof is concerned. This kind of evidence adds considerable depth and continuous verification.)

Answer 8

I don't and I accept that. I don't try and convince anyone else to be a heathen.

Answer 9

That's why they need faith, so they can believe what they want regardless of evidence or lack thereof.

Answer 10

I am not answering Your Question,
i am thinking why people Answer Stupid Questions.???