Skip to main content

No evidence for God?

There's no evidence for God's existence.

This is a popular claim of atheists.

But no matter how you try to argue for evidence for God or supernaturalism, they don't accept it and keep claiming there is no evidence.

What to do?

Put them to provide evidence for their atheistic and naturalistic worldview.

See these articles:

How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist.

Presumption of Atheism and the ‘Insufficient Evidence’ Objection to Belief in God.

Comments

Jime said…
I think there is evidence for God, but its interpretation and implications (regarding to the God debate) are philosophical, not scientific.

I agree with Antony Flew's recent comments (2007) on the type of evidence for God that he accepts: "It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence"

http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

You can draw a philosophical inference for God existence based upon scientific and empirical evidence. This point is important, because many atheists wrongly see God as "scientific hypothesis" to be tested in the laboratory, not as a philosophical inference from evidence.
February 19, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Ardegas said…
Good point, Jime.

Your blogs promises to be interesting.
February 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

Taken from this forum . Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence. Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help. Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives. With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of Go
1 comment
Read more

The Santa Claus Argument

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence". "But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist". "I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?” Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character. But what is the basis of this idea? It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake. Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a hu
23 comments
Read more

Dawkins and the Jews

These are old news, but still interesting: Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy (IsraelNN.com) Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews “more or less monopolize American foreign policy.” Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are “fantastically successful” in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy. A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein,
1 comment
Read more