Evidence for God

But there's not. No objective evidence for any deity has ever been shown. As far as evidence goes, all deities are equal.In fact, the evidence equally supports any and all deities ever imagined, ghosts, goblins, fairies, Santa Claus, the easter bunny, your imaginary friend from when you were 4, and the voices in a schizophrenic person's headThat's the problem with having no objective evidence - everything becomes equally unlikely.

This line of reasoning is flawed because it applies equally well to the mentally disturbed.The sort of revelation iano is referring to is subjective - it is evidence solely for the person who experiences it, and cannot be intependantly confirmed by an additional observer. There is no objective difference, for example, between a person claiming he has heard the voice of God and a person claiming he has heard the voice of Thor os even his imaginary friend. The person very well may be hearing voices, or could simply be convincing themselves that they are being communicated with when no such communication is happening; in either case, an independant 3rd party would be unable to hear teh voices or experience the communication.In the case of the person who claims to actually hear voices, we typically label them as "schitzophrenic" and treat them as such.This is the difference that iano fails to take into account. Yes, the person who has faith may have good reason for their beliefs for themselves, but their reasoning is compeltely invalid for anyone else. If iano, for instance, were to claim that his life has been guided by God, I am reasonably certain that a simple examination of the major events of his life would reveal personal motivation, influences from other human beings, and a major confirmation bias on iano's part where any result is confirmed to be the work of God's guidance. Iano may believe that his life has been guided by the divine, but an outside observer would find the idea preposterous.In my own personal experience, when I was a Christian I "felt" the presence of God as a genuine sensation, an emotional confirmation that God loved me and was watching me. When I spoke to God, I really felt that he was right there with me, listening to every word. I considered these things to be a "good reason" to believe in God at the time, much like iano. But such "evidence" is purely subjective and cannot be conveyed to anyone else except as an individual's say-so.Worse, it's fundamentally no different from a person experiencing hallucinations. In exactly the same way, the "evidence" cannot be conveyed to anyone else except as hearsay. In exactly the same way, the "evidence" is solely the experience of the individual.The experiences of an individual, no matter how "real" for them, cannot be interpreted as objective evidence. When we ask for evidence in support of the existence of a deity, we are not asking for personal testimony - I can find "personal testimony" that supports any religion on Earth, as well as a variety of space aliens, conspiracy theories, and simple delusions from the mentally disturbed.The problem for the faithful is that all of the "evidence" in support of the divine is subjective. You cannot see, hear, taste, smell or touch God. You can find no divine fingerprint, no holy signature, no objective sign that any supreme deity exists whatsoever. God doesn't show up in the sky saying "Hi, here I am." Even the claims of the Bible, the only reason beyond tradition for the existence of Christianity, have either a startling lack of evidence in many cases, or as with some are directly contradicted by real objective evidence.Until theists can produce extraordinary, objective evidence to match the extraordinary claim that God is real, there is no reason to beleive that he is.So no, iano, it is not always reasonable to "belief" what you have evidence for, if that evidence is wholly subjective and cannot be independantly verified. In fact, I would very strongly argue that believing in things that cannot be independantly verified is the very definition of delusion.

Are you serious?Of course I can independently verify them. That's how I know I'm not hallucinating. You know, because other observers also observe the same things my senses seem to be telling me.If you mean "how do you know you aren't actually dreaming/in the matrix/not real/etc," then the answer is obviously I do not - but I have no reason to believe so, every reason to believe I have real sensory input, and for all practical matters reality sure seems to actually exist.If I saw a person that nobody else can see and that person tells me to do things, even mundane things, I'd immediately have myself committed, because I don't have confidence in my own senses if others cannot verify them.For a person suffering delusions, let's say someone having a bad acid trip, his warped sensory perceptions are of course real for him, but don't exist for anyone else.It's of course possible that everyone I meet who confirms my sensory perceptions are actually just figments of my imagination, but 1) I have absolutely no reason to think so and is a completely untestable proposition, and 2) I'm fairly certain I'd imagine people who can use a better argument than the one you just used, iano.

So, by that biblical passage, faith is the evidence for ghosts? Fairies? Imaginary friends? Other things that are undetectable?Wow, I didn't realize you could make things exist just by believing in them.So, why is it I can't seem to believe myself a larger bank account? Why is imaginary money not legal tender?Could it be that your precious little Bible passage has absolutely no connection to reality, no explanatory power, and actually says nothing at all as far as a meaningful definition of the word "faith?"Besides, I never knew the Bible was a dictionary. Anybody else as shocked as I am?

This entire line of reasoning is a gigantic non sequitur.You claim:1) all things that exist require a creator
2) the universe exists
3) therefor, the universe must have a creator.But the entire line of reasonign is false.1) All things that exist require a creator.False. Rocks exist, but do not require a creator. They are the result of well-understood natural processes.You interchangeably use the words "creator" and "cause," when the two mean wildly different things. All things within our Universe require a cause, but not necessarily a creator.Further, we don't know if causality exists "outside" of our Universe. Our Universe is a finite, unbounded structure that has a minimum value in the dimension of time. Causality requires time to exist both before and after an event. Since time has a minimum value in our Universe (and indeed, since time is part of the Universe), saying there must be a "cause" for the Universe to exist requires there to be something North of the North Pole - the statement doesn't make sense.There may well be a "cause" for the Universe, but traditional causality does break down into an unknown here. A "cause" for the Universe requires an additional time-like dimension external to the Universe. Without this, there can be no "before" for the "cause" to reside in.We also don't have any other examples of Universes to compare ours to. We have no idea if Universes themselves require causes. Assuming that causality as it functions within the Universe must apply identically to Universes as a whole demonstrates a closed mind, not an open one. This, specifically, is accurate but incomplete. The Universe is finite but unbounded. Think of a globe. Where are the boundaries on the surface of a globe? It has a finite surface area and occupies a finite amount of space, but it has no boundary. Further, time itself is a property of the Universe (a dimension identical to the spacial ones and different for us only due to the nature of our existence), just as a North/South axis is a property of a globe. "North" has no meaning in space, for instance, but only on Earth. The Earth, therefor, exists over the entirety of the North/South axis...in exactly the same way that the Universe, compelte with all of teh matter and energy contained within, exists over the entirety of time. Time may not be infinite, but the Universe could be said to be eternal, existing at every point in time.You can see how these facts bring causality as it pertains to the Universe as a whole into question.1) Time exists inside of the Universe, as part of it, but does not have meaning "outside" of the Unvierse any more than "North" has meaning "outside" of the Earth.2) Causality requires time to exist, because the cause must exist at a point earlier in time than the effect.3) Causality therefor has unknown relevance to the Universe as a whole.The Universe may or may not have a cause, and that cause may or may not be an intelligent designer. We don't know. Assuming that the existence of the Universe proves that a creator must exist is an unfounded leap in logic - you are choosing one of many possibilities based not upon evidence but upon your own subjective opinions.You also mentioned infinite regression, and dismissed it as irrelevant: You're right - infinite regression does not prove that no creator exists.But it's not intended to.The point of mentioning infinite regression is to point out your special pleading.You claim that all things that exist require a cause. You further claim that the cause of teh Universe must be a creator. If all things require a cause, then the creator must also have been caused.This does not prove that a creator does not exist, but it does mean that you must choose between an infinite number of creators creating each other in the past, or a special=pleading circumstance where you claim that all things require a cause except for the creator, which is an arbitrary and baseless point for stopping the regression.I'd be curious to know whether you choose infinite deities or arbitrary self-contradiction. This is easy.Even if science has abvsolutely no explanation for conscious thought and human free will, it is an unfounded leap in logic to claim that this is evidence for the existence of a deity."I don't know" != "Goddidit."There was a very long time when humanity did not comprehend the causes and workings of lightning. Their ignorance did not in any way provide evidence or even necessarily suggest that lightning was caused by a deity. Even had humanity been forever unable to explain lightning, the unknown does not provide evidence of anything. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy, followed by claiming that all of science and history are based on appeals to popularity and authority.It's quite frankly disappointing.We do not believe that the Holocaust happened, or that the moon landings happened, or that 9/11 happened, or that evolution happened (and is happening), or any of your examples because some people tell us it is so. We beleive these things based on objective evidence supporting the assertion that these events are historically factual. I can go right now and see Ground Zero in New York. Telescopes can see the remains of the lunar landers, and lasers can reflect off of the man-made reflector left there. Fossil evidence (among other things) shows us a pattern identical to what the Theory of Evolution predicts.The number of people who say these things are true, and even their credentials, are compeltely irrelevant.You, however, claim that 600,000 people accepting the Torah and claiming direct contact with a deity proves that the deity actually exists.It's irrenevant, and provides evidence of nothing beyond what those people beleived. 600,000 people accepted the Torah and believed that they had direct gontact with a deity. They don't have any objective evidence that proves that they had direct contact with a deity, nothing beyond simple anecdotal nonsense.If I can show you 600,000 people who claim they've had direct contact with one of the Hindu deities, does that provide evidence that thsoe deities actually exist? Or is it simply evidence that those 600,000 people believe they had direct contact with their deities?Assertions are still just assertions, whether they come from 1 person or a million.The basic truth here, of course, is that you have not supplied evidence in support of the existence of a deity. You've made fallacious leaps in logic, nothing more.