Observations

Perhaps one of the most ignorant things an atheist can say is “there is no evidence for the existence for God“. It is ignorant on almost every level – historical, philosophical, scientific, and personal. There are in fact multiple lines of evidence for God, from the organization of the universe and the information systems and machinery present in living systems, to the universal nature of the spirituality of humans and human moral knowledge, to sound philosophical arguments for God, to the consistent and progressive revelation of Scripture, to the historical record and reactions to the Resurrection of Christ, to the instrumental role Christian belief has played in the foundation of Western culture, and to the consistent transformation of billions of lives throughout history. These lines of evidence are internally consistent, and consistent with what we would expect if indeed Christianity were true.

So an atheist may legitimately question whether those evidences are sufficient for their purposes (their purposes being to be atheistic) and they may dispute the validity or veracity of any particular line of evidence, but if they are the least bit serious they cannot say there is ‘no’ evidence for God.

Anyone who says so should be taken no more seriously than someone who says there is no evidence for the existence of atoms or Abraham Lincoln.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Observations

  1. There is no good scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

    Feel free not to take me seriously. The feeling, I’m sure, is mutual.

  2. jackhudson says:

    First it is notable that saying, “there is no good scientific evidence” is different than saying there is no evidence or saying there is no scientific evidence. Whether the evidence is good or not is something reasonable people can and should debate – but this doesn’t contradict my notion that there is indeed evidence.

  3. Of course there is evidence. Bad evidence. I don’t know why you think that’s a good thing though.

    A person’s eye witness testimony is evidence that they were abducted by aliens. But it’s not good evidence.

  4. aforcier says:

    Because you call me ignorant, you prompt me to say this. It’s all your fault!

    You have bought a parcel of land in an imaginary kingdom. In your imaginary soil, you grow books, words, arguments, proofs… All of this may seem real to you… but you are speaking in tongues, which has meaning only to those who have purchased parcels in your pretend kingdom.

    http://www.ANaturalPhilosohy.com

  5. jackhudson says:

    Of course there is evidence. Bad evidence. I don’t know why you think that’s a good thing though.

    I didn’t say it was a good thing or a bad thing, I said it was contrary to saying there is no evidence, and you are apparently agreeing with me on that count. Obviously I think the evidence is of the good variety.

    A person’s eye witness testimony is evidence that they were abducted by aliens. But it’s not good evidence.

    But it is evidence, and the veracity of it depends on whether it comports with other lines of evidence. Much of our historical knowledge is a product of eyewitness testimony (as is much legal tetimony, which we except as evidence), which either is supported by other lines of evidence or not. I contend the historical record of the Bible and the early church comports with other lines of evidence.

  6. jackhudson says:

    You have bought a parcel of land in an imaginary kingdom. In your imaginary soil, you grow books, words, arguments, proofs… All of this may seem real to you… but you are speaking in tongues, which has meaning only to those who have purchased parcels in your pretend kingdom.

    Ok then.

  7. Neil says:

    Good points in the original post.

    “A person’s eye witness testimony is evidence that they were abducted by aliens. But it’s not good evidence.”

    Do you create all of your scientific test equipment yourself and do all your own experiments, or do you rely on the testimony of others to do them? Do read newspapers or do you do all primary research yourself? And so on.

    People rely on eyewitness testimony all day, every day. The key is to assess who is reliable.

    Science deals with material things. God is immaterial. Lamenting that you can’t use a material process to prove an immaterial being is a category error.

  8. Bettawrekonize says:

    What I don’t understand about evolution is, if there is more genetic variation within a race than across races, how the heck can UCD possibly predict a nested hierarchy? That makes no sense.

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

  9. Justin says:

    I like David Berlinski’s criticisms of evolution on you tube. He absolutely drives evolution proponents nuts, all the while saying that he doesn’t necessarily think that evolution is incorrect. It’s hillarious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: