Do you have any evidence to offer for the existence of a deity? Any evidence at all, not involving blind faith or gullibility?

30 Answers

Relevance
  • David
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    In scientific terms, Creationists claim evidence from the Bible with corroboration of the observed origin of matter, and it is consistent with our belief, literally. Evolutionists cannot say the same, and are frequently inconsistent, like life from non-life, exactly the opposite of laws of the universe; nonsense. Like wishing on a star, wishing for aliens or some form of life out there, or that pesky missing link, when there should be millions/billions of evidences if true.

    Philosophically, the unmoved mover or prime mover is a monotheistic concept advanced by Aristotle (excluding aliens, for example). Aristotle's discourse on the Prime Mover demonstrates that there can be only one Prime Mover (Creator God)—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3).

    We've always had the evidence of God from Creation and the Bible, from Noah and Moses (see links below), and from our risen Christ Jesus. Most of us own a Bible and have the evidence within reach, but simply refuse to acknowledge what constitutes valid evidence. We didn't even have to dig up the Bible, unchanging, right before us, for thousands of years.

    If you were to use a “science-only” position, it ignores other well-respected systems for obtaining knowledge. For example, the legal/historical method of discovering truth is used every day.

    The legal method does not ignore testimony or facts because they are not reproducible or testable. By a process of elimination and corroboration, the legal method allows history and testimony to speak for itself until a verdict is reached beyond a reasonable doubt, and the balance of probability is achieved.

    Any believable report to the contrary of what Tacitus said would surely have surfaced by the time of Tacitus’s writings, but there was none.

    When was Christ crucified?

    The authors of the Bible based their accounts on eyewitness testimony.

    2 Peter 1:16

    1 John 1:1

    Luke 1:1-4

    This confirms their recall ability. At the time they wrote their facts, they had a lot of critics who would have loved to descredit their testimony.

    If the authors had made a mistake, the critics would have pointed it out. People will sometimes die for what they believe to be true, but never for something they "know" to be false. If the Resurrection had not taken place, the disciples would have known it.

    These authors died for their doctrine, willingly gave their lives for their belief in Christ, and this confirms their honesty.

    Supporting evidence from early non-Christian historical sources:

    Papias, acquaintance of John the apostle: "The Elder the Apostle John used to say this also: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order.'"

    Irenaeus, student of Polycarp (student of John):

    "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and starting from these documents, each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular doctrine."

    Combined testimonies of Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, and the talmud gives us the following picture.

    Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover time (Tacitus, Thallus, Josephus, Talmud).

    Jesus rose from the dead three days later (Josephus).

    Jewish leaders charged Christ with sorcery and believed He was born of adultery (Talmud).

    The Judean sect of Christianity spread even to Rome (Tacitus, Suetonius).

    Nero and other Roman rulers bitterly persecuted and martyred early Christians (Tacitus, Suetonius).

    Early Christians denied polytheism, lived dedicated lives according to Christ's teaching, and worshipped Christ (Pliny, Lucian).

    Archaeology as external evidence--Sir William Ramsay

    He went to study in the Bible lands as a liberal; fifteen years later he became a firm believer in a reliable New Testament.

    Ramsay said that Luke was unsurpassed as an historian. For example, when Luke made reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, he made no mistakes.

    In one of His debates with the Pharisees, Jesus said, “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true” (John 8:17). This oft-repeated concept refers back to Deuteronomy 19:15—“by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” This same idea is at the heart of the American judicial system. Witnesses appear in trials to help establish the truth of the matter. Prior to the use of modern forensic experts and recording devices, reliable eyewitnesses were essential. People believe in the historicity of many past events because of eyewitness testimony without ever seeing photographic evidence for those events.

    Although the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was proven by “many infallible proofs” and has been recorded in God’s Word, atheists will continue to reject the free gift of God’s grace and cling to their irrational humanistic worldview.

    It should be noted that while some people reject the infallible record (the Bible) of the infallible proofs, a study of the historical evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus has been a major factor in some people coming to faith in Christ, including apologists like C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Sir William Ramsey .

    Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible)

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160...

    Five Evidences of Noah’s Flood

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160...

    Bible Accuracy

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170...

    • David
      Lv 7
      3 weeks agoReport

      Want to refute my claim that the origin of life is explained in Genesis?

      I would expect one to be able to provide a reasonable argument that is consistent with the Philosophy of Science that explains why the evidence is lacking...

  • 3 weeks ago

    Sure. Every year millions experience God for themselves. You should, too. It's the logical thing to do. Don't bother moving the goalposts. It's more evidence than you have to shore up your pretense that there is no God.

    • Sara
      Lv 7
      3 weeks agoReport

      And every year millions of people experience being abducted by aliens. Do you believe them?

  • sarah
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Look around at the marvelous creations on this planet. From the jelly fish to the birds they are amazing. We were all made by a creator and also making this planet habitable.

  • 3 weeks ago

    DNA--a 3 billion character perfectly sequenced "message" that tells molecules how to behave to sustain life. The existence of logic and reason--immaterial, and therefore non-existent if there is no God. Since you want evidence, I assume you're trying to USE logic and reason. Love--also immaterial and non-existent if there is no God.

    Just in case you aren't clear, those immaterial things are non-existent because if there is no God, they can't exist. We would just be molecular accidents reacting to chemicals--not actually reasoning. If that were true, anything that we thought we "knew" would be reaction, not reason, therefore, bunk.

    So, for anyone to say, "There is no god," IF that were true, would just be a forced reaction--what the chemicals decided to produce that day.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Tim
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    What do you know about evidence?

    The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Eva...

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34989/34989-pdf.pd...

  • Paul
    Lv 6
    3 weeks ago

    If ten of my friends each tell me they know John Smith, I take that as evidence that John Smith exists, even though I have not yet met him. If hundreds of millions of people tell me they know Jesus Christ and live in daily relationship with Him, then I would feel like an idiot to tell them they are all imagining knowing Him, just because I haven't met Him yet.

  • Anonymous
    3 weeks ago

    Sure.

    My God, Jesus says this: if you disown Him before others, publicly, He will disown you before His angels in heaven.

    So go right ahead... do it here and now. Then go to the mall and say it loud in the food court... you know... just to make sure it ‘takes’.

    If you refuse, that means you believe in Him (just like He says you do).

    So the ball is in your court.

    Prove to US that you DON’T believe and disown Him here and now. If you don’t do it, it means you do believe already and we don’t need to do a thing.

    @Michael: you stand condemned ALREADY because you have chosen to stay ignorant.

    • Michael3 weeks agoReport

      Your dares designed to earn me damnation have no basis in reality. However, they are useful for revealing how truly hateful and vindictive you christers are.

  • mokrie
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    That's like asking to see proof that your in love. Either you are or your not. Either you believe or you don't. And if your obsessed with getting proof then it shows you desperately WANT to believe but don't know how to do it.

  • The only evidence they have is “stuff exists, therefore god”, which basically means they think everything was created by magic because they don’t understand how it happened.

    The anonymous coward who claims there is “evidence of god everywhere we look” proves my point. Notice how he/she actually doesn’t actually say what the evidence is, just says “there is evidence”. And then goes on to threaten you by claiming his cruel god will wreak havoc and violence and you. Aren’t Christians just lovely,

  • Yes dear, there is testimonial evidence, for example, the Holy Bible, and thousands of years of testimony. Now tell me dear, do you plan on using the moving the goalposts fallacy to exclude that evidence from the body of evidence, or the personal incredulity fallacy to declare that it is not evidence (when the reality is you just found it difficult to understand)? Do tell, dear.

    Source(s): ex-atheist
    • Broton
      Lv 6
      3 weeks agoReport

      Testimonials are only evidence that people believe, they say nothing about the truth of those beliefs

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.