CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is there evidence for God?
Some religious people claim that the have evidence for God, I have never heard any evidence for a God and was wanted to hear this evidence they say they have and let others have the chance to respond to the arguments.
It may have been asked a million times, but people still claim they have evidence for a God and they never produce it, you thought they would of with a million chances to do so.
It depends on which angle you look and how honest your judgement is.
So many cases of miracles and return from death experiences has been reported but science disproves it as mere chances (or side effects of drugs)
So many chapters in every holy books has been debunked as ridiculous and caused fundies to slaughter those who are a threat to their belief.
You may say anything you want. It doesnt matter, it all falls to the single answer
Insanity is when you do the same thing while expecting different results. By asking this question once more, you just prove that mankind was created under the image of the Lord - a stupid one
It is if there is no evidence where you would expect to find it. Also even if that was the case you wouldn't be justified in believing that a God exists, you should suspend belief at least if that was the case.
I think that Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy sums this up.If I was to say that there was a teapot in orbit around the sun between Mars and Jupiter, but it was just to small to be detected by our telescopes, would you conclude the teapot is there, suspend belief or say that there is no teapot?
Yeah I mean there is a golf ball in the moons orbit. Or it may have went away but we would detect it. It wouldn't be discoverable by telescopes but by shooting different signals towards it we can easily see it. The same way we see the wrench that orbits our earth. We cant see it with a telescope but different signals easily pick it up. I'm an astronomer so I do know this stuff. I just say this theory because you can't really prove it false.
I would disagree about picking things up easily and i would say that we wouldn't be able to detect a teapot in orbit between Jupiter and Mars solely on the fact that the area this encompasses is vast and the amount of asteroids in this area would make it almost impossible, if not impossible with our current technology.
I just say this theory because you can't really prove it false.
In the same sense as no one can disprove that the universe was created 5 seconds ago with all their memories. Just because you can put something forward which is non falsifiable doesn't give any credibility to the argument.
Actually we can. We see things that small all the time. We use infared, radio, gamma rays or whatever and we get a reading back. Jupiter for light isn't that far. All electromagnetic energy travels at the speed of light which, if I round it up, it would just be 300,000 km/s. A tea cup would easily reflect incoming rays of electromagnetic radiation. Are technology is excellent for our solar system. How do we track a wrench in earths orbit without looking at it? Electromagnetic radiation, which is just forms of light, easily tracks it. The solar system is easy to plot out. Mars and Jupiter are obviously far from each other in miles but in AU's they aren't far. Also I lived longer than at least ten years and if our memories were still here then obviously a universe wasn't created because something had to have placed them there. Also a tea cup is too easy for astronomers. Now try dark matter. Thats hard to track. Or black holes or pulsars. Thats something harder. Or at least a brown dwarf star. That would be much harder to detect than a simple tea cup.
I understand all of that, I'm going to study physics at university in September, but at the vast volume of space between Mars and Jupiter and the trillions if not more pieces of rock in this volume larger then a tea cup it is unlikely in that sense if we could detect it. Also we would not have the resolution to pick out a tea cup unless we were close enough and then you would have to know where to find it the odds are miniscule to nil.
Also I lived longer than at least ten years and if our memories were still here then obviously a universe wasn't created because something had to have placed them there.
You seem to have misunderstood the argument it was that you cannot disprove that we were created 5 seconds ago with all of our memories there already. Also the memories could be an illusion to give the impression that we have been here longer and the universe could of been created 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age, the argument can't be disproved. I could also say you cannot disprove that we are in the matrix.
If your going to study physica then study astronomy. Because a tea cup is not hard to identify. If a tea cup was floating in the belt we can detect it. We have probes out there. Or we could just lauch some signals the same we do when we track the wrench that orbits earth. We can detect tons of rocks. Scientist are looking for catastrophic rocks not miniscule insignificant rocks. If you study physica then you would know that we discovered alot just by electromagnetic radiation. Black holes? Signals. Ocks? Signals. Especially since a tea cup isn't made up of elements like a brown dwarf is then we can detect it. This is simple for astronomers. Or can you prove that this hasn't happened and we are just here because of a ton of meteor collided with earth making earth livable. The thing is what created this illusion that you mention? What started it? If there is no start like a big bang then what? Something would have to have made it. But still. Try something better than a tea cup. I don't know if they go over all of astronomy in physics but in astronomy its very possible to find a tea cup.
What exactly is your point with the teapot analogy?
Anyways, it's been pretty obvious that there is no "physical evidence of god", that is, not one person whom believes can grab their god(s) from the "sky/heavens/whatever" and bring him right in front of you for you to touch, to see, [ECT]. That is impossible as we know it.
So the age old question "Is there evidence for God?", the answer is yes (to those whom believe) there is evidence, in "miracles", or "guardian angels", or "demonic possession" (if there is that side, there must be the other sort of thing), in "divine feelings/emotion", in "testimonials on how their god(s) has 'helped' their lives", in "the way a person carries themselves", in "nature/the beauty of nature and its 'complexity'', in "the beauty of the universe and all its wonders", in "the unknown" (that is, since there will always be the 'unknown'/that which cannot be explained, there is room for god(s) to exist(s), in "numbers", in "music", in "the fact that we're alive in the first place. These are but the tip of the iceberg and simultaneously some reasons/evidences for certain people that do believe in God(s). These evidences also justify/are enough for many believe to believe in god(s).
And so therefore, when these are brought up, an atheist, or others, will states "that is not evidence, how am I supposed to take your word for it?/your feelings are not evidence of god/[ECT]"...
So the non-believers will continue to state that those whom do believe are crazy/insane/illogical/nonsensical, [ECT] until they themselves "feel those things", or "find their god(s), whichever way possible", or until they physically see this GOD many MANY people have been talking about for many many years.
What exactly is your point with the teapot analogy?
The point of the teapot analogy is to show that in the absence of evidence you do not accept the claim.
Anyways, it's been pretty obvious that there is no "physical evidence of god", that is, not one person whom believes can grab their god(s) from the "sky/heavens/whatever" and bring him right in front of you for you to touch, to see, [ECT]. That is impossible as we know it.
No one was saying you could grab your god. What I will say, is if you are a christian you believe in a God who can manifest himself in reality, if you deny this then read the bible. If God effects reality ( such as the miracles in the old testament) these claims ca be tested.
So the age old question "Is there evidence for God?", the answer is yes (to those whom believe) there is evidence, in "miracles", or "guardian angels", or "demonic possession"
There is no evidence of any of these things, so counting them as evidence makes no sense whatsoever.
in "divine feelings/emotion", in "testimonials on how their god(s) has 'helped' their lives", in "the way a person carries themselves",
There is not much I really want to say on this, apart from they could easily be placebos and I would say they are, but I would also say that the fact that belief in any deity such as Vishnu could have this affect on someone and I'm sure you wouldn't accept Vishnu would you? The fact that a belief in any God could have this affect on someone, shows that merely a belief in a deity causes these not whether the deity exists.
in "nature/the beauty of nature and its 'complexity'', in "the beauty of the universe and all its wonders", in "the unknown"
Science can explain the complexity of the nature through simplicity.
Beauty is a subjective, some people find spiders beautiful, whilst others find them hideous. So I don't see how beauty can be used as evidence of a deity.
Also the unknown, I personally find this more puzzling as to how this is evidence for God then the others, this is because it seems as if you are saying ignorance is evidence of God?
(that is, since there will always be the 'unknown'/that which cannot be explained, there is room for god(s) to exist(s), in "numbers", in "music", in "the fact that we're alive in the first place.
God of the gaps as this is called, sitting in gaps no matter how small, because as science and our understanding advances these will get smaller and smaller.
And so therefore, when these are brought up, an atheist, or others, will states "that is not evidence, how am I supposed to take your word for it?/your feelings are not evidence of god/[ECT]"...
That is because non of it is evidence or justifies any belief, it is just people saying this is God when there is a perfectly rational explanation for something.
Everything you just stated is the reasoning behind it, non-believers.
You claim "no one was saying you could grab your god", yet anything and everything a believer says that is evidence for, you argue against stating this, that or whatever can explain it, or that "the science realm can explain these things" (I've not included whether or not I am, generalization of believers in X, Y, Z god(s) BTW)
So therefore, basically if a non-believer will not believe a person whom does believe, they themselves must find their own ways to believe in a god (if they so choose), and/or deep down wish they could just physically see this so-called god themselves.
The fact that there are many people whom believe in many different god(s), (as looking from the outside in), would say "obviously something is there for them to believe in X, Y, Z god(s)..."
OR
The fact that science will never understand and achieve its goals, which is to understand the world around it, makes the "god of the gaps" a false presumption; when science claims it is the end all, herego, GAPS being involved in the first place, it is stating that whatever science has not learnt or understood, must not be truth yet because it cannot "be verified"..
Many believers have much faith in science, and many scientists have much faith in X, Y, Z god(s)...so if it goes back and forth, the "god of the gaps" means nothing and is nothing for it cannot back its claim itself.
So as you say "there is a perfectly good explanation for something", yes you're right. Who are you to say the "perfectly good explanation of something" cannot be explained by a "higher being/deity, whatever". In other words, why must science be the only source of truth?
You claim "no one was saying you could grab your god", yet anything and everything a believer says that is evidence for, you argue against stating this, that or whatever can explain it, or that "the science realm can explain these things" (I've not included whether or not I am, generalization of believers in X, Y, Z god(s) BTW)
It Doesn't really matter what God you believe in because which ever if any my points involving certain Gods could as easily substitute a lot of different Gods.
The fact that there are many people whom believe in many different god(s), (as looking from the outside in), would say "obviously something is there for them to believe in X, Y, Z god(s)..."
Not really considering we know humans contribute purpose to things around them, such as a group of children are given are given two explanations as to why there are mountains, one is the process of tectonic plates and the other is that mountains are there for animals and people to climb, which do you think was the most popular answer?
This shows as children we see purpose in things where purpose doesn't exist, it is the same with adults if you look at animals and plants humans thousands of years ago would see the complexity and because all the other complex things they have come across, are tools they themselves have made they would assume that something must of created the animals as well. The idea of a designer is the base of many Gods.
The fact that science will never understand and achieve its goals, which is to understand the world around it, makes the "god of the gaps" a false presumption;
It is not a false presumption because it is sitting god in the gaps of science. You are sitting God in one place and when that hole is filled you will move him to another. That is a god of the gaps even if science doesn't eventually fill them all because you are not giving any evidence as to why God fills these gaps.
it is stating that whatever science has not learnt or understood, must not be truth yet because it cannot "be verified"..
Yet again this is untrue, if there are gaps in science we say we don't know and if there is a hypothesis which could fill it, it has to be tested and tested to see if it stands up to scrutiny not just asserting how it is.
Many believers have much faith in science, and many scientists have much faith in X, Y, Z god(s)...so if it goes back and forth, the "god of the gaps" means nothing and is nothing for it cannot back its claim itself.
Do you want to clarify what this is supposed to mean because at the moment no matter how i read it i cannot make any sense out of it.
So as you say "there is a perfectly good explanation for something", yes you're right. Who are you to say the "perfectly good explanation of something" cannot be explained by a "higher being/deity, whatever". In other words, why must science be the only source of truth?
Provide evidence for this higher being and it could be, but just saying God did it isn't an explanation. If i said that gravity is caused by leprechauns then you would expect me to provide evidence for it not just accept it as the explanation.
I'm not saying science is the only source of truth, but without evidence backing it, something is not a real explanation.
I am asking you, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM BELIEVERS?
You're silently screaming out to the world "Where are you God!?" and to believers "SHOW ME YOUR GOD!?" are you not?
Are you not asking the believers in this world to show you their GOD(s)?
Are you not asking the believers to GIVE EVIDENCE THAT SUITES YOUR NEEDS of their GOD(s)?
OBVIOUSLY the idea of a "designer" is based upon many gods, thats my point.
You may say "well if there are many god(s), which one is correct?,....oh wait, none of them because there are too many!"
And I would say "Since there are many, who knows the absolute truth, regardless, many people speak of many god(s), therefore SOMETHING MUST BE THERE."
All of mankind hasn't been on placebo effects, taking drugs, speaking out of their asses since the beginning of time.
If thats the case, then science and all its glory is nothing more than placebo effects, taking drugs, and speaking out of their asses being over their heads.
In which case everybody is a fucking agnostic.
This is fucking ridiculous.
It's like you're saying there is meaning behind something (science), but not faith (those whom believe)...
What the fuck do you want from those that believe.
You act like like those whom believe do not ask the same questions you're fucking asking.
I am asking you, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM BELIEVERS?
I expect people to think as critically about God as they do about everything else in society.
Are you not asking the believers in this world to show you their GOD(s)?
I'm asking them to show evidence for their claim. If it was anything else they would want evidence.
Are you not asking the believers to GIVE EVIDENCE THAT SUITES YOUR NEEDS of their GOD(s)?
I'm asking for real evidence not just asserting God. All the so called evidence you have said wouldn't pass for it anywhere else so why should it pass here?
OBVIOUSLY the idea of a "designer" is based upon many gods, thats my point.
you seem to have flipped my point around I essentially said the idea that we need a designer to explain the complexity of the world is the bases of many gods.
We create gods to explain the complexity because the only other complex things we have seen we have made, so we would apply this to the universe and conclude something must of designed it. If 400 years of science has told us anything, it is that the complexity of the universe can be explained by simplicity and without the need of invoking a designer.
You may say "well if there are many god(s), which one is correct?,....oh wait, none of them because there are too many!"
I wouldn't say that, this does show that humans have a habit of creating gods though.
And I would say "Since there are many, who knows the absolute truth, regardless, many people speak of many god(s), therefore SOMETHING MUST BE THERE."
I would say because the Gods are contradictory, some have many gods others have one God, it definitely doesn't show that there must be one. I have already said though it doesn't prove there is not a God though, it just shows we make them up.
All of mankind hasn't been on placebo effects, taking drugs, speaking out of their asses since the beginning of time.
Well I would disagree. Do you believe that witch doctors work? people believed in these for a very long time some people still do but they are nothing more then a placebo.
Also do you believe in astrology? people for over a millennium believed this rubbish some people somehow still do, the people at the time believed it but they were wrong.
If thats the case, then science and all its glory is nothing more than placebo effects, taking drugs, and speaking out of their asses being over their heads.
This clearly is untrue, I am wondering if you know what a placebo is after that comment but i will respond. It is of course possible that certain medicines could be placebos, that is why they are tested and go through trials to compare them to the placebo, and the medicines show to be more effective then a placebo. Astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology and the majority of the other sciences I am struggling to see how they could possibly be a placebo, that is why I'm wondering if you know what a placebo is?
The last part of this comment "speaking out of their asses being over their heads" while i don't think it makes much sense, I will like to point out science works on evidence not on how someone feels.
It's like you're saying there is meaning behind something (science), but not faith (those whom believe)
Can you clarify this because I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say by this?
You act like like those whom believe do not ask the same questions you're fucking asking.
It's fucking 2013.
I know its 2013 and to me its a shock that in 2013 people can still believe things with no evidence. Also I've never said that the people whom believe don't ask the same questions, but I will say it seems as if they don't require the answers they put forward to have any evidence, which in my opinion basically shows that they don't really care if the answer they have is true just that they have an answer.
Finally you seem t enjoy swearing and i have been reading what your writing, but in your responses you keep saying things I want to address ( If i didn't read what you wrote I wouldn't be responding to the points in them).
I expect people to think as critically about God as they do about everything else in society.
People, like myself, do think critically about God. Just because it's not "your way" doesn't mean they're wrong.
I'm asking them to show evidence for their claim. If it was anything else they would want evidence.
There is evidence, you just don't accept it, get the difference? Plain and simple as you say!
I'm asking for real evidence not just asserting God. All the so called evidence you have said wouldn't pass for it anywhere else so why should it pass here?
The evidence portrayed as already passed elsewhere, with many people, so what evidence that I've described has not passed? Its obvious people believe for many reason, including the ones I've portrayed.
you seem to have flipped my point around I essentially said the idea that we need a designer to explain the complexity of the world is the bases of many gods.
We create gods to explain the complexity because the only other complex things we have seen we have made, so we would apply this to the universe and conclude something must of designed it. If 400 years of science has told us anything, it is that the complexity of the universe can be explained by simplicity and without the need of invoking a designer.
Once again, your idea of simplicity differs from many. It is simple, something created us. Yet you claim the "complexity" part is not complex, yet simple. Either way, there are many forms of complexity. What is your fucking point?
I would say because the Gods are contradictory, some have many gods others have one God, it definitely doesn't show that there must be one. I have already said though it doesn't prove there is not a God though, it just shows we make them up.
There are many religions and any cultures and societies and many languages. It could be possible that the differentials only implies that such said things exist. That is, perhaps everyone is talking about the same god(s), yet, because of culture and language barrier they call it X, Y, Z. Every think of that? I use what you state against yourself. These believers use filters and different lenses to describe what they see, know [ECT}. So therefore, it could be possible that there is in fact something there, yet people call it whatever they wish to based upon their societal manner and position.
Well I would disagree. Do you believe that witch doctors work? people believed in these for a very long time some people still do but they are nothing more then a placebo.
I believe there are more medicines to heal, to help a person than what "science and doctors" have prescribed. There are prescription that fuck a person up more than they know, this is obvious. So, regardless of placebos, think of the opposite, which is when a drug prescription by a doctor fucks a person up more than which they intended. And so therefore, drugs are not the only way to help a person, nor are they the only way to fuck up a person. Do you understand this?
This clearly is untrue, I am wondering if you know what a placebo is after that comment but i will respond. It is of course possible that certain medicines could be placebos, that is why they are tested and go through trials to compare them to the placebo, and the medicines show to be more effective then a placebo. Astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology and the majority of the other sciences I am struggling to see how they could possibly be a placebo, that is why I'm wondering if you know what a placebo is?
Please read above, it explains what you think I do not know.
The last part of this comment "speaking out of their asses being over their heads" while i don't think it makes much sense, I will like to point out science works on evidence not on how someone feels.
Hah, once again, science is merely what a person feels to be truth; via data, testing ect., not much different from a religious person whom believes.
Can you clarify this because I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say by this?
It's like you're saying, science has meaning and validity, and religion does not. Where is your evidence that states religion is not seeking the truth nor have meaning and validity? There is none.
I know its 2013 and to me its a shock that in 2013 people can still believe things with no evidence. Also I've never said that the people whom believe don't ask the same questions, but I will say it seems as if they don't require the answers they put forward to have any evidence, which in my opinion basically shows that they don't really care if the answer they have is true just that they have an answer.
Finally you seem t enjoy swearing and i have been reading what your writing, but in your responses you keep saying things I want to address ( If i didn't read what you wrote I wouldn't be responding to the points in them).
2013 and you're shocked that people still believe? Why? What makes today and this day and age different from 500 years ago? Or even 1,000 years ago? You really think technology and science will explain to a person whom believes that what they believe in doesn't exist? What about science, or what you speak of, ought to give evidence that any god(s) does not exist? Science does not say no god exists or not. What is your point with this? This is like you stating "Because science is here and now, im shocked as to why people believe in X, Y, Z because science shows otherwise." And I ask you, What in science says there can not be a god(s)? There is none, other than your claiming that these beliefs are based upon no evidence and no validation. Where does it say in science "nothing outside of science can be truth?" There is no such thing so what are you refuting?
The evidence portrayed as already passed elsewhere, with many people, so what evidence that I've described has not passed? Its obvious people believe for many reason, including the ones I've portrayed.
I didn't say people don't believe in God for the reasons you gave, I said that the reasons like those wouldn't pass in any other context then with God. If I was to say that the gaps in science leave space for leprechauns and also that rainbows are evidence for leprechauns, you wouldn't accept that would you?
And this is exactly the same sort of so called evidence you put forward for God.
Once again, your idea of simplicity differs from many. It is simple, something created us. Yet you claim the "complexity" part is not complex, yet simple. Either way, there are many forms of complexity. What is your fucking point?
Yet again you haven't understood my what i am saying. What i am saying is, lets take life as an example, if you look at a lion it is incredibly complex, but as we know now because of evolution we can explain how this complexity arose from a simple beginning. This is the same for the Universe as a whole we can explain how the complexity arose from a simple beginning.
There are many religions and any cultures and societies and many languages. It could be possible that the differentials only implies that such said things exist. That is, perhaps everyone is talking about the same god(s), yet, because of culture and language barrier they call it X, Y, Z. Every think of that? I use what you state against yourself. These believers use filters and different lenses to describe what they see, know [ECT}. So therefore, it could be possible that there is in fact something there, yet people call it whatever they wish to based upon their societal manner and position.
The Gods are completely contradictory, if you want to say that it is just other cultures and people looking at the same God, then i could say that different cultures have believed in vampires, werewolves, fairies and leprechauns maybe its just different cultures looking at the same thing. Some of the Gods are as different as these creatures.
I believe there are more medicines to heal, to help a person than what "science and doctors" have prescribed. There are prescription that fuck a person up more than they know, this is obvious. So, regardless of placebos, think of the opposite, which is when a drug prescription by a doctor fucks a person up more than which they intended. And so therefore, drugs are not the only way to help a person, nor are they the only way to fuck up a person. Do you understand this?
There are side effects to drugs but this has nothing to do with the original point made about a placebo. Also I never said drugs are the only way to help people you are just attacking a strawman there. What I will say is all these other methods can be scientifically scrutinised, to see if they are working or if they are just a placebo.
Please read above, it explains what you think I do not know.
You haven't answered it you said at the start placebo aside and also if you do know what a placebo is explain how science can be a placebo as you claimed earlier. As I have said Astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology and the majority of the other sciences I cannot see how these can be placebos.
Hah, once again, science is merely what a person feels to be truth; via data, testing ect., not much different from a religious person whom believes.
Are you being serious? Science works by making hypothesis and performing different experiments to see if it agrees with nature. If it does not agree with nature it is thrown out, but if it does it starts to become accepted but is still rigorously tested. Science doesn't care what someone feels to be true if it doesn't agree with the evidence it is wrong. That is completely different from what happens in religion.
It's like you're saying, science has meaning and validity, and religion does not. Where is your evidence that states religion is not seeking the truth nor have meaning and validity? There is none.
Science has validity because it relies on evidence, if it didn't it would not have validity. The answers religion poses to answer questions have no validity unless they have evidence supporting them. Unless religion starts relying on evidence and not just asserting things, they cannot say they are searching for the truth because if evidence doesn't matter then all answers are equal.
2013 and you're shocked that people still believe? Why? What makes today and this day and age different from 500 years ago? Or even 1,000 years ago? You really think technology and science will explain to a person whom believes that what they believe in doesn't exist? What about science, or what you speak of, ought to give evidence that any god(s) does not exist? Science does not say no god exists or not. What is your point with this? This is like you stating "Because science is here and now, im shocked as to why people believe in X, Y, Z because science shows otherwise." And I ask you, What in science says there can not be a god(s)? There is none, other than your claiming that these beliefs are based upon no evidence and no validation. Where does it say in science "nothing outside of science can be truth?" There is no such thing so what are you refuting?
The difference between now and 500 years ago is that we now know a lot more about the universe, 500 years ago we knew barely anything about the universe as Lawrence Krauss says Without science everything is a miracle. I have never said science says there cannot be a God, a deistic God science cannot say anything about, but a God which most people can believe in can be tested because it interferes in reality.What i have stated is that i am shocked that in 2013 people will still accept things on little too no evidence, which is exactly what believers do. the final point you make, yet again you are attacking straws, I have never said that science is the only truth. If something has no evidence then it cannot be considered truth.
No. Zero legitimate physical, scientific, historical, or anthropological evidence exists. Only bullshit psudo science or "what if" suggestion type evidence which doesn't prove anything
Some of me agrees there is and some of me disagrees. I agree because i busted my liver open in 2008 and lost 2 pints of blood. The doctors said it would take 6 weeks to heal. It took 2 weeks. 2!!! But i have people come up to me and ask me who created God and i dont have an answer for that. That's what got me to question it. My dad is a pastor so people ask me stuff like that and i ask him. He said "God created himself". I dont believe that.
I wouldn't call that logic for Gods existence at all because the conclusion does not follow from the questions, it just asserts that we could not prove anything without him. Also you only have two responses which a lot of people would not use as answers to these questions because they are chosen specially for the purpose and not because they are responses that people would give to these questions.
If this is the standard of evidence you require, you must accept everything someone tells you.
