what's the best evidence of the existence of a "god"?
373058
:}\nthe existence of anything\nNo creation without a creator\n\nthat great first cause.
848400
I disbelieve on the grounds of lack of evidence so short of proof being forthcoming I couldn't say I believed God existed. Convictions or subjective opinions don't come into it-it's purely down to a lack of valid evidence.
1082718
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved. It is a matter of belief, not of science which is only concerned with provable events.
460066
You don't need historical evidence to belieive in God. Its a matter of your level of faith, you either believe in him or you don't. Sure, there may not be a lot of proof, but I know he is there, I know he exists, without him where do you think you came from?
800729
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:\n\n\nDoes it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question." \nIf it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it. \nIf we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion." \nIf it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction). \nIf there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method. \nThe fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.\nIf life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.\n\n\nI.\nThe first reason for believing in life after death is simply that there is no compelling reason not to, no objection to it that cannot be answered. The two most frequent objections are as follows:\n(a) Since there is no conclusive evidence for life after death, it is as irresponsible to believe it as to believe in UFOs, or alchemy. Perhaps we cannot disprove it; a universal negative always is difficult if not impossible to disprove. But if we cannot prove it either, it is wishful thinking, not evidence, that makes us believe it.\n\nNow this objector either means by 'evidence' merely empirical evidence, or else any kind of evidence. If he means the latter, he ignores all the following proofs for life after death. There is a lot of evidence. If he means the former, he falls victim to the self-contradiction argument just mentioned. There is no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence we should accept is empirical evidence.\n\nIn most supposedly scientific objections of this type, an impossible demand is made, overtly or covertly-a demand for scientific proof-and then the belief is faulted for not satisfying that demand. This is like arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that "I have not found Him in my test tube," or like the first Soviet cosmonauts' "argument" that they had found no God in outer space. Ex hypothesi, if God exists He is not found in a test tube or in space. That would make Him a chemical or a meteor. A taxi trip through Cleveland disproves quasars as well as a laboratory experiment disproves God, or brain chemistry dispro
592235
Dear musical_k,\n\nRegarding miracles...\n\n1. It is rational to believe that God exists (e.g., see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/evidence.htm for scientific and intellectual evidence for the existence of God).\n\n2. If God exits, he can perform miracles.\n\n3. Given that it is rational to believe that God exists, it is therefore rational to believe that miracles are possible.\n\n4. I choose to be consistent and rational in my world-view and in my beliefs. Therefore I believe that miracles are possible.\n\nCordially,\nJohn
1048933
You can't use miracles as proof of the living God.  You have to live it and show them.  They will use logic and the powers of this world to try and prove His non-existence.  The best way to show people God is to be like Christ in everything and live happily.  Happiness is contagious and people wanted to be infected so badly.  If you find true happiness in faith in God and Christianity, then they too will want to find that same happiness.
1107508
What evidence might that be?
421715
I'm open to the possibility, basically for the same reason I believe in God.  There's no evidence to prove or disprove either God or unicorns, dragons, or manticores existing, so I just have my gut feeling to go on that they all do exist.
329366
it is impossible to prove a negative.  One cannot prove the non-existance of god just as they could not prove the non-existance of WMD's in Iraq.  The lack of evidence against something in both cases is not evidence of it's existance.
399690
Peace on you...Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.\n\nThink about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.\n\nAnd then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.\n\nCan a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.\n\nAfter considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident?"\n\n(see also "Quran")   May Allah bless us
297129
The existance of god is in fact a logical halting problem.  Since there cannot exist evidence beyond "faith" or lack of understanding we can not prove or disprove gods existance.  The best logical answer to give is; if nothing else god exists as a means to enforce set of guidlines to keep the masses under control.  This was the easily identifyable  purpose of most pre judea-christian religions, as seen through the governments (of those times) ability to manipulate the local religion to their benifit.  Does god exist? In this sense yes.  Is it a good thing? If your the one running the show.  Note: I think I am the first here to answer all 3 questions.
366437
He does exist!  There's no other explanation that doesn't contradict it's self.  I'm a believer in Christ, but a lot of people are skeptic.  If you do your research, you'll find outstanding proof that God exists!
1012277
- The Bible says god exists\n\n- Just have faith\n\n- Just pray\n\n- Just believe, that's the only proof you need\n\n- You have to discover him for yourself\n\n- The creation\n\n- Just look in your mirror\n\n- Well, the world couldn't have just happened by chance. Trillions of planets exist and one has life, no, it couldn't have happen by chance.\n\n- You're alive aren't you?\n\n- He only speaks to you if you want to hear him\n\n- The universe\n\n- The complexity of the human body\n\n- The answer is in you\n\n- Meditate\n\n- Just look around you\n\n- My children\n\n- Common sense\n\n- Life proves he exists\n\n- You can't disprove his existence which means he exists\n\n- The miracles\n\n- I almost was in a car accident and was seriously injured, it was not known at first if I would survive or not. I went to a hospital of course. The hospital workers were extremely well trained medical professionals with years of experience. The equipment they used for tests in order to help me make a full recovery were top of the line. Modern medical science truly saved my life, therefore god exists.\n\n- God himself is proof that he exists
845144
It would first be necessary for the apparition to convince me that it was in fact god.  The obvious test to use, since one may suppose that god knows everything, is to ask for the ultimate theory of everything.  (Einstein spent the last years of his life looking for such a theory; he never found it, and neither has anyone else.  The problem is fiendishly difficult.)  If the apparition succeeded in convincing me that it was god, then I should ask: what would he like me to do?
681269
There can never be proof of a spiritual reality in a physical world.\n\nOnly idiots will quote the Bible or Quran as proof ... because there is no proof that they are really from a supreme being.  Proof can only come from an established truth. No scripture of any religion can be proof.\n\nSome foolish people claim that all you need is faith. They overlook Jesus' most important teachings. He spoke of a foolish man building his house on sand (blind faith) and the wise building it upon a solid rock (factual information). He was showing that faith without a solid ground is just another name for stupidity.\n\nPersonally, I feel that in a great void prior to the world, there was a "Dynamic Energy" and through the big bang part of that energy was converted to mass (E=MC^2). This resulted in the many worlds and galaxies being formed. It is all very scientific.\n\nIt is important to realize that everything and everyone around us, including ourselves is part of that "Dynamic Energy"... not from it, but part of it.\n\nNow substitute the phrase "Supreme Being" for "Dynamic Energy" and you will realize that everything around us including our enemies is all part of GOD ... not from him, but PART OF HIM.\n\nThe world that we pollute is part of Him, our enemies we are shooting at is part of Him. The table and that chair we touch is part of Him.\n\nIf every one could believe this way, there would be no wars, no poor, no pollution because we would realize that we were doing it to God himself or herself.\n\nThat may be why many religions say we are all GODS or divine, part of God or in his image.  \n\nI think they are all very right on this aspect.
763236
A good question. There is as much *** proof *** of his existence as there is for all the other deities and pseudo deities.\n\nNote the word *** proof *** here meaning "not what some mortal scribbled down in parchment a few hundred years AFTER the alleged fact, THEN had it translated - several times - interpreted and re-written."