What is some anecdotal evidence for the existence of God?

Answer 1

Proof is too strong of a word. There are many that think the existence of God is the most logical conclusion based on the following:

1. Science has not come up with any reliable theories on the birth of life. Experiments done to make life appear out of non-life have not been successful even under the most ideal circumstances set in a lab. Because of this, even many scientists have adopted a form of deism as an answer to this perplexing conundrum.
2. The sustaining of life force is also a mystery to science.
3. The universe presents an overwhelming and vast amount of evidence in support of a supremely intelligent and powerful designer.
4. The very chemical make-up of all things is so complex and yet precise that many believe for this to happen without control to be impossible.
5. Many feel that physics and natural laws were "written" by someone or something.
6. Living cells contain a wide array of functions that science has been unable to figure out where the programming for those functions came from.
7. Mass can be formed from raw energy, so many conclude that God is that source of raw energy.
8. The fact that humans have emotions may be the single, most powerful evidence of God's existence.

Answer 2

Anecdotal evidence for the existence of God may include personal experiences of feeling a profound sense of guidance, protection, or connection to a higher power, answered prayers, or witnessing miraculous events that are attributed to divine intervention. However, it is important to note that anecdotal evidence is subjective and can vary widely among individuals.

Answer 3

We can never really know that God exists, because his existence is a matter of faith, and faith only. True, there have been many arguments put forward in attempts to prove that God exists, but the very multiplicity of these arguments demonstrate that theologians recognise that not one of the really is a proof. If one of the arguments developed over the last 2000 years really were a proof, then the search for better arguments for God's existence would then stop.

Answer 4

There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.Link: Is there evidence against Evolution

• 1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of Atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203). From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.

Link: God's wisdom seen in His creations

• 2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Professor Russel Stannard (a particle physicist) states: "The universe has been bent over backwards in order that intelligent life should exist...must have known we were coming."
  

• 3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to believe in and worship something greater than themselves. No ancient society ever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.
  

Link: Ancient belief

• 4) Tradition: There are historical events which cannot be explained without God. Many people have had personal experiences that turn them toward theism, but there are also events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.
  

Link: Archaeology

• 5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.
  

• 6) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
  

a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.

c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.

d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?

- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the odds of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by a curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."

Answer 5

As far as I know, WE CAN'T. A LOT of so-called "proofs" have been presented, trying to prove that some god or gods exist, but in ALL cases - as far as I am aware - fatal flaws have been found in the arguments presented. You can see a list with links to some of the favorite arguments in favor of God (and the corresponding rebuttals) here:http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Arguments_for_the_existence_of_god

Answer 6

There is no scientific evidence that proves the existence of gods.

Faith and Science are different regions of discourse, each with its own logic. Irrationality is
trying to argue one in terms of the other. For example, what will count as evidence in religious
discourse will not do so in scientific discourse. The regions of discourse are conceptually different and confusing the two leads to conceptual puzzlement and irrationality. It should be noted that religious 'proof' is a much less exacting concept than scientific proof and its value lies only in the minds of its authors.

Answer 7

Someone once said, 'Without The Bible, believers would have no proof.' The Bible does indeed report ancient Hebrew people actually seeing God - so, if those reports could be verified, they would be prima facie evidence of the existence of God. However, the reports were written centuries after the supposed events and could be considered to be coloured by legend and conviction. Objectively, reports at such a distance in time are no more reliable than a twenty-first century belief that only King Arthur of medieval times could pull the sword from a rock. Moreover, biblical accounts of the prophets' personal acquaintances with God are so contradictory as to defy logical explanation.
Various philosophical arguments, such as the teleological argument, the cosmological argument and the ontological argument have been put forward to justify belief in God's existence. As each argument has been shown to have fatal weaknesses, a new argument has been put forward, but none has prevailed. Blaise Pascal proposed 'Pascal's Wager' which proposes that it is rational to act as if God does exist, just in case it is true. Pascal's Wager can also be used in an argument to demonstrate that God does notexist.

It remains a matter of faith, and faith alone, that the biblical accounts are correct.

Answer 8

There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.
Here are a few.
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.Is there evidence against Evolution

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.

3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient societyever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.

4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.

5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.

6) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.

c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.

d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are not minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?

- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the real chances of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."

Now, the other side of the Question: why might people notbelieve in God?

1) Peer influence. In high school, for example, the one or two religious believers in a class may be subject to ridicule.

2) Convenience; desires. No one wants "bothersome" rules, or limitations to their personal pleasure. We see how lack of self-discipline has led to epidemic obesity, drunkenness, divorce rates, violence etc.

3) Lack of proper information. People have inaccurate notions about God, religion and belief. They've picked up tidbits, jokes, and "sound-bites," and on such solid authority they dismiss the entire topic.

4) Unfortunate experiences. Many have had personal hardships, or a harsh religious upbringing or education, and as a consequence may retain an unhappy feeling towards belief, without realizing that emotions and proofs are two different things.

5) Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution was an unquestionable fact, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there are a significant number of highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.

6) Intellectual laziness. Many people have simply never delved into the subject, to see if God's existence can be convincingly demonstrated.

7) Stereotyping. People call us "religious nuts," "Bible-thumpers," etc.; so the average layperson may get a negative feeling toward all belief, not realizing that he/she should first look into the existence of God in principle, before necessarily looking into religion.

Answer 9

AnswerThere is none. There also is no empirical evidence for thoughts, emotions, dreams or imagination. All of the arguments given by religious people for the existence of God can be shown to be flawed. However, the same is true of any arguments made against the existence of God. Religion is purely a matter of faith; people who choose to believe in God do not have evidence to support it (though they often claim otherwise, it is not evidence that stands up to a rigorous, scientific examination) and people who choose not to believe in God do not have evidence that there is no God. There is also no more evidence for any one god than for any other. It is just as sensible to worship the gods of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians as it is to worship modern deities. Everybody must decide for himself or herself which religion (if any) to follow.

Starting with the hypothesis that there is a God, but accepting that there has not been any reliable, testable evidence to support this hypothesis despite many attempts, it is not rational to believe that there is a God.

AnswerOne common misconception is that faith is blind and that some just believe in God without proof that he exists, but the bible itself contradicts that belief. Hebrews 11:1 defines what faith is, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

So religion isn't purely a matter of faith and we should only have faith of realities or things after we've seen "Evident demonstration." Or, "convincing evidence."

So is there convincing evidence or Empirical evidence that God (our creator) exists?

Empirical means - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Experiment means - a test, trial, or tentative procedure.

So can one prove by experiment or test that god exists?

Absolutely!

Put God's detailed prophecies written in the Bible and their fulfillment to the test

and ask yourself if any human has ever predicted things so accurately. Only a super human being could have spoken the prophecies recorded in the bible.

[I'll post examples by 2/1/09]

Alternative approach

There are many layers of misunderstanding regarding empirical evidence, and the concept of 'proof'. This is not even a matter of dispute between faith and scientific method. When scientists claim that no empirical evidence can prove the existence of God, people of faith might be tempted to take offense, or believe that they are called to action to right an injustice against religion. The truth is that empirical evidence can prove nothing, not even scientific theories or concepts. If you think about the nature of 'scientific method', or even about the occasionally tumultuous history of scientific theory, you realize that empirical evidence and experimentation are designed to eliminateopposing or contrasting proposals about how a given system works. As you continue to eliminate these alternative proposals, a theory that consistently stands up to the challenge begins to seem more and more likely true. But this should always give thinking people reason to doubt, in a healthy and dynamic way. Just because this or that theory is not yet toppled, it doesn't mean that it will not be by some future visionary. It is clear then that God cannot be proven empirically, and it seems less than helpful to want to do it. By its nature, faith in God cannot be reduced to empirical evidence or to scientific method. Saying that God can be proven empirically is making a claim to some ultimate power of rational and critical analysis that simply does not yet exist. Faith communities are better off not subjecting God to the certain humiliations of empirical evidence and scientific method.

It is undeniable that many, many things about the world and about our experience of it are observed by the faithful and are held by them as evidence that God exists, that God created, and that God acts in our world today. This is understandable; it can (and obviously does) lead religions to coherent systems of belief. In fact, the reality and nature of such observations (not necessarily the interpretations of them) should be common to all people, and in most cases they are. Where the observations themselves are in serious dispute, science might be able to shed some light or add some insight, especially if faith-based thinkers help to hold science to its task of accurate, unbiased methods. But when it comes to considering the observations as constituting proof, then faith, and only faith kicks in. Science is useless; why would anyone put energy into refuting this?

Answer 10

Preface

It must first be said that this question is not asking for proof of God's existence. The answer has been edited for that reason. In Latin it was called "evidere"which literally means "to look out." Evidence is something which we see that can help us form our conclusions. This is not a proof, which is facts that verify a conclusion.

This being said, you should read these evidences as merely evidence. I am not telling you to believe in my God, nor am I trying to dissuade you from your own belief system. However, these items can be considered evidences for the existence of God. Please be sure to read them with an open mind (and if you disagree, you can comment on the discussion page).

Evidences: Biblical

One must say that the Biblical evidence for God's existence is rather obvious. In most apologetic debate people will usually choose to disregard the Biblical evidence citing the Bible as not being a trustworthy resource. This, however, is a debate in itself. One which I will submit to you is a little harsh on behalf of the Bible. In truth we know that the Bible is the most printed, widely known, sold, and held book in the history of print. If we submit the Bible to the acid tests by which we hold other such historical documents (Josephus, Homer, etc.) we know that there are insurmountable copies in stella, papyrus, paper, and more. The historicity of other documents (such as Darnell's Gebel Tjauti Tablet, e.3100's b.c.e.) are based on where the document was found, c-dating, and etc.

Natural

The very beauty of the world we live in is evidence of our Creator. The calm and tranquility we feel when we're sitting next to a fresh water brook, watching a beautiful sunset, or feeling a pre-rain breeze blow past us is an evidence to the beauty which the world was created with. The absolute intricacy with which the universe works also speaks to the existence of God. The minute details by which protein is metabolized by DNA to form sequences and code which translate to who we are or even the balance of the universe in which nearly infinite planets and moons orbit nearly infinite stars speak of His presence. This is what has come to be known as Paley's Watchmaker analogy.

Philosophical

Many philosophers have tried to reason the existence of God. Such as:

Thomas Aquinas-

-All objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.

-If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists an object which holds that property to a maximum degree.

-There is an entity which has all properties to a maximum degree.

-Therefore, God exists (being said object of maximum degree).

Answer 2:

There are tens of evidences for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject is ultimately one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of these.
Here are a few:
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.
2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Many people do believe God exists and many do not. The belief in God is all about faith.