Evidence

[Jstwebbrowsing]

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

[12 Monkeys]

Can you dismiss other religions and peoples of the ramifications of #3 or are they just liars?

 Do their gods exist using the same statement?

[HAL]

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

If that is considered evidence for your god, then all type of things now have evidence for them being real, such as UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, Loch Ness monster ... shall I go on?

[Jontom10]

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   


3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

The court would then hear the evidence and decide whether it is true or not.

i.e. You may give written or oral statements about God existing because <insert here>. I would then consider your evidence and decide whether it is true or not.

E.g.

You: "There must be dragons because the bible says there are"

Me: "Bullshit!"

[screwtape]

3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

Whose written statements of witness do we have?  How reliable are they?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Can you dismiss other religions and peoples of the ramifications of #3 or are they just liars?

 Do their gods exist using the same statement?

No they could not just be dismissed without investigation.  And even though there are different beliefs about God it is the common belief among them all that there is a God that I think is the most worthy of investigation.

If that is considered evidence for your god, then all type of things now have evidence for them being real, such as UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, Loch Ness monster ... shall I go on?

Yes, and all of these things have merited investigation and some are more easily dismissed than others.  I think it strange you would place UFOs among them however.  Some of the best scientists are looking for life on other planets, although not necessarily intelligent life.  However, it stands to reason that if life outside our planet exists then some of it could also be intelligent.  If that is possible then it is also possible they have visited this planet.  I cannot definately say noone has seen an alien craft. 

The court would then hear the evidence and decide whether it is true or not.

i.e. You may give written or oral statements about God existing because <insert here>. I would then consider your evidence and decide whether it is true or not.

E.g.

You: "There must be dragons because the bible says there are"

Me: "Bullshit!"

But beliefs from the Bible vary greatly.  Someone might say dragons exist because the Bible mentions one, but other would say it was use of symbolism.  So instead of just dismissing all accounts shouldn't only those accounts that are definately false be dismissed?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

Whose written statements of witness do we have?  How reliable are they?

That depends on who you ask and there are some really smart people on both sides of the issue.  If I say I saw an alien how can anyone know if I actually did or not since noone can definately say there are no aliens.

[Eddie Schultz]

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

From what dictionary did you get the pronunciation of "evidence"? Here is the pronunciation from merriam webster. \?e-v?-d?n(t)s, -v?-?den(t)s\
And here are 2 definitions of the word "evidence" from the same dictionary.
1
a : an outward sign : indication 

b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

[Jstwebbrowsing]

From what dictionary did you get the pronunciation of "evidence"?

Haha yes I noticed that too.  It came from Bing.

[Astreja]

The testimony of witnesses could possibly be evidence for a god, but until the testimony is properly analyzed all we have is a collection of allegations  that might or might not stand up in court.  As the purported witnesses are long dead and cannot be put on the witness stand, allegations are still all we have to go on.

There's also a lot of counter-evidence, particularly regarding claims of miracles.  Extraordinary things that supposedly happened in Biblical times do not happen in this day and age.  Biology, physical cosmology, medicine and geology cast serious doubts upon entities such as Talking Snakes™, the structure of the skies above us, the proper way to treat leprosy, and whether or not the entire Earth suffered a catastrophic flood.

Finally, multiple cultures having god-stories just seems to indicate that cultures generate such stories at some point in their development, rather than serving as evidence.  IMO, there is far too much disparity among the various divine myths for them to be pointing to the same entity:  Athena is not Shiva is not Oðinn is not Diancecht is not Biblegod is not Bastet, although they all point at different facets of the human experience.

[Aaron123]

3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

Number 3 would be evidence of belief, or evidence of a claim.  It wouldn't, in itself, be evidence that god exists.  I could claim that Star Wars is a historical document, and that Darth Vader was once a real-life person.  That statement would not make it true, would it?  Now, if I could procure some actual jedis to showoff, then perhaps there might be something to that claim...

[bertatberts]

From the Oxford English Dictionary

Evidence:

Noun
[mass noun]

    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
    Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
    signs or indications of something:there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

Verb
[with object]

    be or show evidence of:the quality of the bracelet, as evidenced by the workmanship, is exceptional

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

So in regard to your versions number 3, it would only becomes viable if it aligns with the facts. If it does not it is discarded as hearsay. So sorry doesn't help you case.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

The testimony of witnesses could possibly be evidence for a god, but until the testimony is properly analyzed all we have is a collection of allegations  that might or might not stand up in court.  As the purported witnesses are long dead and cannot be put on the witness stand, allegations are still all we have to go on.

There's also a lot of counter-evidence, particularly regarding claims of miracles.  Extraordinary things that supposedly happened in Biblical times do not happen in this day and age.  Biology, physical cosmology, medicine and geology cast serious doubts upon entities such as Talking Snakes™, the structure of the skies above us, the proper way to treat leprosy, and whether or not the entire Earth suffered a catastrophic flood.

Finally, multiple cultures having god-stories just seems to indicate that cultures generate such stories at some point in their development, rather than serving as evidence.  IMO, there is far too much disparity among the various divine myths for them to be pointing to the same entity:  Athena is not Shiva is not Oðinn is not Diancecht is not Biblegod is not Bastet, although they all point at different facets of the human experience.

Yes I see what you are saying.

Extraordinary things that supposedly happened in Biblical times do not happen in this day and age.

I can appreciate this point.  But even in the Bible the miracles that are recorded were few and far between and even then they were not viewed by everyone.  There is no standard for how often they should occur nor who gets to witness them.

Also I wonder about the common themes shared by varying religions.  A story of a golden age, the fall of man, the flood, and some other things are found in different religions with some variations.  How can anyone accept there is not even a kernal of truth in those stories?  I am not one given to conspiracy theories.  But it seems to me that rejecting the idea of God is accepting that religion is the motherload of conspiracy theories.

Number 3 would be evidence of belief, or evidence of a claim.  It wouldn't, in itself, be evidence that god exists.  I could claim that Star Wars is a historical document, and that Darth Vader was once a real-life person.  That statement would not make it true, would it?  Now, if I could procure some actual jedis to showoff, then perhaps there might be something to that claim...

No it is not physical evidence but eye witness testimony can be used in the absence of physical evidence on many occasions.

[Eddie Schultz]

Jst, a question for you that is off topic. Is this how you feel?

 "Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else."

Taken from Aaron123's sig.

Thanks

[Aaron123]

I wonder about the common themes shared by varying religions.  A story of a golden age, the fall of man, the flood, and some other things are found in different religions with some variations.  How can anyone accept there is not even a kernal of truth in those stories?  I am not one given to conspiracy theories.  But it seems to me that rejecting the idea of God is accepting that religion is the motherload of conspiracy theories.

Those things are quite simple to explain.  "Golden age" is another way of expressing rose-tinted nogalistic for the past, without considering how things actually were.  We see this today with the fondness of the "good-old days" of the 1950s, where everything was sunshines, prayers were in school, children respected their parents, didn't get pregnant, and jobs were easy to come by.  This ignores the negative aspects of the time period, ignores that not everyone liked prayers in school, not everyone respected their parents (or that not every parents deserved respect), some teenagers did get pregnant, and not everyone had jobs.

I'm not familar with other religions having a "fall of man" idea.  Examples?

Flood stories are very common among ancient cultures because people tended to settle along the coastline.  Floods tend to happen alongside the coastline, so naturally, people experienced floods fairly often.

No it is not physical evidence but eye witness testimony can be used in the absence of physical evidence on many occasions.

So there is no physical evidence for god?  Then what makes the claim for god any different than claiming Star Wars is a histortical document?

[Astreja]

Also I wonder about the common themes shared by varying religions.  A story of a golden age, the fall of man, the flood, and some other things are found in different religions with some variations.  How can anyone accept there is not even a kernel of truth in those stories?

The question is, what is that kernel?  Is it pointing to real gods, or to a social phenomenon?

As for those common themes, in typical loose-cannon fashion My Norse ancestors turned them all ass-backwards.  We had no Golden Age in our past.  We started with a war (the Æsir vs. the Vanir) and then calmed down a bit, until the fire giants (not a flood) wrecked the joint and killed everyone, even the gods.  (To complicate things just a bit, in My family's personal mythology Ragnarök is a past event, and now we're in the Golden Age.)

I am not one given to conspiracy theories.  But it seems to me that rejecting the idea of God is accepting that religion is the motherload of conspiracy theories.

Not necessarily a conspiracy, per se.  Formalized religion could just be a holdover from earlier tribal sociopolitical structures, possibly driven by the agricultural revolution in the Mesopotamian area (and necessitated by the need to control a growing and increasingly urbanized population), and also facilitated by the invention of writing.

[screwtape]

That depends on who you ask and there are some really smart people on both sides of the issue. 

Why is there no agreement on the evidence?   Smart, rational people with a similar basis of understanding should arrive at similar conclusions, no?  So where is the hang up? 

If I say I saw an alien how can anyone know if I actually did or not since noone can definately say there are no aliens.

I think this is a good sentence.  It encompasses a lot of the errors and assumptions also found in religion.  Were you to claim you saw an alien, my first question would be, how do you know?  Sure, I can concede you saw something.  But whether that something was an alien is a question.

Similarly, I've known people to say "I had an experience from god".  Okay, let's start with the idea you had an experience.  How do you know it was god and not something else?  Let's even say it actually was a god experience.  How would we differentiate that from any other experience?  How could you tell it was god?

[Backspace]

Doesn't the LDS church claim to have verifiable, witness testimony going back to when Joe Smith found the gold plates under a rock un upstate New York?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Jst, a question for you that is off topic. Is this how you feel?

 "Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else."

Taken from Aaron123's sig.

Thanks

I've thought about his long and hard.  Firstly I am not a Christian but I am a believer.  To me that means I'm more of a listener than a doer. It's not like I'm some evil maniac but there are many things I should do better if I want to claim to be a Christian.

And it may mean the same thing but I would word things differently than the quote.  For me to deny God's existance would be no easier than denying my wife's existance unless I really am just off the wall crazy.  If I am crazy then I definately want to know. So I guess there is some room for error.  It is hard to shake off personal experiences if you are the one that has them however.

Those things are quite simple to explain.  "Golden age" is another way of expressing rose-tinted nogalistic for the past, without considering how things actually were.  We see this today with the fondness of the "good-old days" of the 1950s, where everything was sunshines, prayers were in school, children respected their parents, didn't get pregnant, and jobs were easy to come by.  This ignores the negative aspects of the time period, ignores that not everyone liked prayers in school, not everyone respected their parents (or that not every parents deserved respect), some teenagers did get pregnant, and not everyone had jobs.

Yes this does happen.  However these do still have a grain of truth.  Where is the generation of children that called everyone sir and ma'am?  Each generation seems to push their limits a little bit further. 

I'm not familar with other religions having a "fall of man" idea.  Examples?

Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age. When Prometheus gave the gift of fire to mankind, helping them live through times of cold weather, the gods were angered. They gave Pandora a box and told her not to open it, knowing full well that her curiosity would get the better of her. When she opened the box, she released evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

Pandora's box could be compared to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Flood stories are very common among ancient cultures because people tended to settle along the coastline.  Floods tend to happen alongside the coastline, so naturally, people experienced floods fairly often.

Being so familiar with floods, something out of the ordinary would have to occured for them to have stories of a fantastic flood.

So there is no physical evidence for god?  Then what makes the claim for god any different than claiming Star Wars is a histortical document?

This is another of those things that it depends on who you ask.  Some say there is none.  Others say the entire universe is physical evidence.  And neither side can absolutely rule the other out, and barring some obviously divine intervention I don't think they ever can.  Even scientists are left with deciding which one that think is most likely true.

The question is, what is that kernel?  Is it pointing to real gods, or to a social phenomenon?

Well this I don't know.  And I don't know of any way to know for certain.

As for those common themes, in typical loose-cannon fashion My Norse ancestors turned them all ass-backwards.  We had no Golden Age in our past.  We started with a war (the Æsir vs. the Vanir) and then calmed down a bit, until the fire giants (not a flood) wrecked the joint and killed everyone, even the gods.  (To complicate things just a bit, in My family's personal mythology Ragnarök is a past event, and now we're in the Golden Age.)

It seems obvious people were highly superstitious although I don't understand why considering they were obviously highly intelligent.  It is easy to say they just made things up to explain things they didn't understand but who does that?  There are things I can't explain but I don't just make up lies.  I don't think it should be assumed that all of them did either.

Not necessarily a conspiracy, per se.  Formalized religion could just be a holdover from earlier tribal sociopolitical structures, possibly driven by the agricultural revolution in the Mesopotamian area (and necessitated by the need to control a growing and increasingly urbanized population), and also facilitated by the invention of writing.

Are you saying the rulers made it up to control their populations?  Isn't that the epitome of conspiricy theories?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Why is there no agreement on the evidence?   Smart, rational people with a similar basis of understanding should arrive at similar conclusions, no?  So where is the hang up?

Yes these are my sentiments exactly.

I think this is a good sentence.  It encompasses a lot of the errors and assumptions also found in religion.  Were you to claim you saw an alien, my first question would be, how do you know?  Sure, I can concede you saw something.  But whether that something was an alien is a question.

Similarly, I've known people to say "I had an experience from god".  Okay, let's start with the idea you had an experience.  How do you know it was god and not something else?  Let's even say it actually was a god experience.  How would we differentiate that from any other experience?  How could you tell it was god?

Yes I can understand this.  And I am very skeptical myself.  Concerning aliens I haven't made up my mind.  Surely some sightings are hoaxes and some religion is malarky.  But then there are those times that an outsider can neither confirm nor deny what someone has said.  And if you allow the possibility that aliens could exist then how can you rule it out.  What is the possibility that only a single alien sighting is true?  How could you know?

With the case of aliens however I don't have to care so much.  In the case of religion you are wagering your life on it.  I would not wager my life on saying noone has ever seen an alien.

Doesn't the LDS church claim to have verifiable, witness testimony going back to when Joe Smith found the gold plates under a rock un upstate New York?

I don't know.

[jaimehlers]

3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

It isn't evidence that can be studied or independently corroborated.  Instead, it relies on subjective interpretation and arbitrary belief, on trying to overawe others instead of convincing them.  It's like arguing over whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla, except without having the actual flavors to sample.  Or, like Star Trek vs Star Wars, except that the people involved really believe that both universes really exist (say, in some other dimension), rather than being movies, television shows, books, and other merchandise that were invented by humans.

[Astreja]

Are you saying the rulers made it up to control their populations?  Isn't that the epitome of conspiracy theories?

No, I don't think the rulers made it up; I think at that point it was already integrated into their culture and that most of the rulers believed the myths as much as the people in the street.

What I do think is that the advent of cultural centralization via agriculture, and of written language, provided the bedrock for a more persistent and centralized form of spirituality.  As the population increased, communities spread out and collided with neighbouring cultures, and major turf wars started.  Religious identity may have become confounded with national identity, with belief being used as a loyalty test, and from that point onward to only very recently the fortunes of religious and secular leaders moved in parallel (and often with both types of power vested in a single gods-sanctioned ruler).

We're now in an era where innovations like the printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, TV and now the Internet have reversed much of that phenomenon, decentralizing the power, and religious belief has declined in many jurisdictions.  (That's a subject that may need its own thread -- Is communication the enemy of religious institutions?)

[median]

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

I didn't say there was no evidence for a God. I said there is no good/sound evidence (and no coherent definition either).

It seems that by your standard I could present the flickering lights in my house as evidence for ghosts toying with them. Does that work? The time to believe a claim is after sufficient evidence has been presented (not before).

Btw, a Pascal's Wager type argument doesn't cut it either. What if Islam is right? "How could you know"? This reasoning is absurd b/c it ASSUMES that "your life depends on getting it right" when in fact the burden of proof for that statement hasn't been met either.

[Nam]

A varied amount of definitions for "evidence":

http://dictionary.die.net/evidence

-Nam

[Samothec]

Except the gospels don't count as evidence. Now, a lawyer should be consulted for the exact procedure(s) but AFAIK testimonial evidence needs to be presented in person from persons who can be verified (as good as possible) that they were present for the events they are testifying about. If the witness cannot be present but certain criteria are met, a record of their testimony can be used. But again, they still need to have actually been an eyewitness. None of the gospels matches those criteria AFAIK.

As for anal-probing aliens, why don't they either pick reputable intelligent people and/or troll the internet for the lonely gay guys who are really desperate for almost any action? Until they put an ad up on the hook-up sites offering a selection of probe sizes, no they are not visiting us yet. Hmmm, I wonder if they have any friends with tentacles? j/k[1]

1.	moistly, I mean, mostly

[Aaron123]

Yes this does happen.  However these do still have a grain of truth.  Where is the generation of children that called everyone sir and ma'am?  Each generation seems to push their limits a little bit further. 

Where is the generation of men that could own slaves?  Where is the generation where we could freely call black people "niggers"?  Where is the generation where men could slap their wives into submission?

Every time periods have their positive and negative aspects.  To suggust that one such period could be called a "golden age" is to ignore the negative aspects.  Likewise, to suggest we're living in a "not-golden age" is to ignore the postive.

Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age. When Prometheus gave the gift of fire to mankind, helping them live through times of cold weather, the gods were angered. They gave Pandora a box and told her not to open it, knowing full well that her curiosity would get the better of her. When she opened the box, she released evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

Pandora's box could be compared to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That's an interesting story, but I see no reason why I should take it seriously.  This story states that one point, humans were immortal.  Why should I ever think that was once the case?  What's the evidence of that?  Likewise, all those gods... what's the evidence that they ever existed, let alone interacted with humans?  The story also implies that at one point, there was no such thing as "death" "sorrow" and "plague".  Again, evidence?  We know very well that those things existed millions of years before humans were around (unless you want to suggust that the dinosaurs never died out).

This story is just the product of someone imagination.  It's a fanciful way of "explaining" why there is suffering in the world.

Being so familiar with floods, something out of the ordinary would have to occured for them to have stories of a fantastic flood.

I don't see how.  People tell stories all the time.  People LOVE stories.  People also build up and elaborate on things.  I see no reason why some people couldn't have just tried to tell "the flood story to end all flood stories".

This is another of those things that it depends on who you ask.  Some say there is none.  Others say the entire universe is physical evidence.  And neither side can absolutely rule the other out, and barring some obviously divine intervention I don't think they ever can.  Even scientists are left with deciding which one that think is most likely true.

Well, if no good evidence exists for your god, then why presuppose his existence?  Seems like I might as well presuppose the greek gods.  At least there were a bunch of them, and they had cool names.  (With biblegod, it's either Yahweh or Jealous.  Not very exciting.)

[Fiji]

Are you saying the rulers made it up to control their populations?  Isn't that the epitome of conspiracy theories?

No, I don't think the rulers made it up; I think at that point it was already integrated into their culture and that most of the rulers believed the myths as much as the people in the street.

What was that quote again? Religion is seen as true by the poor, false by the wise and useful by the mighty.

[screwtape]

In the case of religion you are wagering your life on it. 

Nah.  You are wagering an alleged afterlife.  If I am as wrong about god as xians say I am, then I've lost the wager, but I've not died. Neither will you if you lose your faith. 

Doesn't the LDS church claim to have verifiable, witness testimony going back to when Joe Smith found the gold plates under a rock un upstate New York?

I don't know.

Yes, this is what they allege.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#Brief_history

The plates were supposedly written in [wiki]reformed egyptian[/wiki], a language which archaeologists, linguists and egyptologists agree is complete baloney. 

[sun_king]

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

<snip>
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

Did you notice that #3 is for something legal, not scientific. By that process JC is not the son of god because you will probably have no witnesses (honest ones) giving statement that god made Mary pregnant.

Scientific evidence should be accessible to anyone who is involved, otherwise it will remain an unproven theory. We have millions and millions of unproven theories, take a number and get in line.

Here is one possible discussion:

Me: I designed an engine which gives a mileage of 921 miles per pint with an average power output in the range of 300 HP and has zero emissions.
Colonel Motors: Fascinating, can we see this wonder?
Me: Not till I get 1 trillion
Colonel Motors: You gotta be kidding...
Me: No, I have evidence, oral and written statements from 13 butchers and 1 mailman. That would suffice, put the trillion on the table...
Colonel Motors: Bovine excrement ... $@%$ .... *&^$%...