Not A Single Shred Of Proof

[Dog Breakfast]

Many of my skeptical compadres toss around that the reason they don't believe in God is that "there's not a single shred of proof" that any such being exists. If they were to tell a theist that, though, they could very easily get a barrage of information about billions of Marian apparitions, or apparitions of other holy things, houses of worship that weren't destroyed in a disaster, people with mystical knowledge, people with strange powers that highly stubborn skeptics from around the globe had no choice but to totally believe, the list might as well be endless.

To people who believe this stuff, the thought that "there's not a single shred of proof" is about as insane sounding as someone saying that there's not a single shred of proof of heliocentrism or some other hotly debated issue.

Just to be clear, I'm fairly certain that there are all sorts of very strange things that have happened and that people have experienced in human history, but a general lack of rigorous examination of these strange things makes your guess as good as mine for any particular one.

All anybody can do about the question of God existing is a guess, but for billions of people, all the supernatural beliefs they have are what support their belief in God. I get the strong feeling that faith isn't even that necessary. What's there to take on faith, when Mary appeared so very many times to humans, or when Allah defended so many mosques from the Indonesian tsunami, or when Ganesh drank so very much milk?

I hope I was clear enough. Does anybody think that saying there is not a single shred of proof for deities, whether that statement is true or not, might come off to believers as slightly/extremely uninformed?

[Lowpro]

What's even zanier is when people say "Proof?! We're here (referring to the fact we exist)! Isn't that proof of God/Designer/first cause (Which apparently is also their specific God)?"

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

I hope I was clear enough. Does anybody think that saying there is not a single shred of proof for deities, whether that statement is true or not, might come off to believers as slightly/extremely uninformed?

proof = sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition
I think you have confused the word "proof" for evidence
Usually the saying is "there is not a single shred of evidence", proof is more elusive
you can't have a "shred of proof", when something has proof the game is over

[Toontown]

If an all-powerful Master Of The Universe actually existed, then there would be no question of His existence. What is He, a God or a Mouse? What is He hiding from?

Sun-worshippers at least picked a god whose existence they could demonstrate to doubters. They could just point at their god and say "He's right up there, you fool. What are you, blind?"

Which you would be, if you looked at their god very long. But we modern unbelievers are not so lucky. We must take the Christians' word for it that we will indeed go to a very bad place after we die, should we fail to believe and repent.

I suppose we should take their word for it. It's not like they have an agenda or anything...

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by Marduk

proof = sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition
I think you have confused the word "proof" for evidence
Usually the saying is "there is not a single shred of evidence", proof is more elusive
you can't have a "shred of proof", when something has proof the game is over

I was thinking about that as I wrote, but I guess I didn't think about it for long enough. In any case, it's the same deal: I'm sure plenty of theists (as well as a great many believers in how you say "woo") take tales of visions and other strange happenings as evidence that their belief is accurate. I suppose the more thoughtful among them would say it is evidence, but not proof, but on the other hand, if it turned out that Ganesh actually was drinking milk, that would be proof that Ganesh existed, I reckon. And if you believe Ganesh was drinking milk, it's probably because you believe Ganesh exists before you heard about the milk issue. I was also thinking about the circular reasoning bit, and happily I thought of it in time, but the fact remains, tales of miracles and things form a powerful part of belief in paranormal phenomena.

I like focusing on strange events that people who believe in miracles call miracles (though a lot of people call non-strange events like cancer remission miraculous as well. I'll see you in another thread) because those are the more study-able and less susceptible to semantic confusion than arcane discussions about morality or creation which I'll wager only a minority of people use as arguments about God. Probably almost every human is more interested and swayed by stories about miraculous things than philosophical hair-splitting.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

What's even zanier is when people say "Proof?! We're here (referring to the fact we exist)! Isn't that proof of God/Designer/first cause (Which apparently is also their specific God)?"

Our existence proves nothing except the existence of a fundamental order which makes our existence possible. And, if a God exists, then His existence likewise proves nothing except the existence of a fundamental order which makes His existence possible.

Yeah, I know. It's wierd that order, and not chaos or nothingness or a God, is fundamental. Who woulda thunk it.

Well, actually, anyone who believes in a First Cause believes in the existence of a fundamental order. The reason why people think it makes sense to make a Person out if it remains a matter of speculation, however.

[Halfcentaur]

When I have to point this out, I make it a point not to claim there is no proof, but to clarify that there is no compelling proof. Every single piece of evidence they cite is no more compelling than all the many things they do not personally accept when claimed by other people. Anecdote is not compelling evidence.

I concede that first hand experience is worth considering personally, but I would never expect anyone else to accept my anecdotes as compelling evidence. But I make it a point to address how easily swayed we are in mistaking our own experiences and feelings. I often like to talk about how infested my house is with fleas and how I am finding them all over me, only to have someone soon telling me they feel itchy and think they feel fleas as well. I then share with them that I made it up to demonstrate the same way people think they feel ghosts and gods.

To those who claim apparitions appeared before them and spoke clear as day, I've nothing to offer as argument beyond letting them know I'd think they were mentally ill before I'd think they were describing something real.

But I'm open to compelling evidence beyond anecdote, if it is possible to be produced. I don't think it is.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

I was thinking about that as I wrote, but I guess I didn't think about it for long enough. In any case, it's the same deal: I'm sure plenty of theists (as well as a great many believers in how you say "woo") take tales of visions and other strange happenings as evidence that their belief is accurate.

Problem is, whenever their "evidence" is tested objectively, it turns out it was not evidence at all. Despite all the millions of claims of religious "evidence", never once has any such evidence actually been scientifically confirmed. On the contrary, wherever it's been available to testing it's always turned out to be false.

On the other hand, there is a vast mountain of genuine evidence from science that confirms perfectly natural explanations for everything ever discovered.

So far the score is - scientific natural evidence 100-million vs. God evidence Nil.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by IanS

Problem is, whenever their "evidence" is tested objectively, it turns out it was not evidence at all. Despite all the millions of claims of religious "evidence", never once has any such evidence actually been scientifically confirmed. On the contrary, wherever it's been available to testing it's always turned out to be false.

On the other hand, there is a vast mountain of genuine evidence from science that confirms perfectly natural explanations for everything ever discovered.

So far the score is - scientific natural evidence 100-million vs. God evidence Nil.

Exactly. If you want to prove that God exists because some paranormal thing exists, then you must FIRST prove that the paranormal thing is real. Your entire belief depends on it. So prove it. There is a million bucks in it for you as well. Once we have established that the paranormal is real, THEN we can talk about whether of not it is evidence of God. I won’t hold my breath.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

Probably almost every human is more interested and swayed by stories about miraculous things than philosophical hair-splitting.

Miraculous like . . . what exactly?

[Bikewer]

If you go with the more correct term, "evidence" instead of "proof", then you're also obligated to get into a discussion about the quality of evidence needed to be acceptable, which will lead you down a long and lonely road.
If the believer talks about large numbers of Marian apparitions, you could veer off into the Madness Of Crowds, Paradolia, Cultural Memes (Aborigines would be unlikely to interpret an apparation as The Mother Of God, but more likely Snake Woman or whatever) and other subjects that might keep you entertained for hours.
If not profitably...
Best to just utter the Stephen Hawking quote, "the universe does not require that God exist." and let it go at that.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

If they were to tell a theist that, though, they could very easily get a barrage of information about billions of Marian apparitions, or apparitions of other holy things, houses of worship that weren't destroyed in a disaster, people with mystical knowledge, people with strange powers that highly stubborn skeptics from around the globe had no choice but to totally believe, the list might as well be endless.

And what of all the people who not more than 150 years ago swore they saw fairies? Very prominent people believed in fairies, and yet now they are not really en vogue anymore.

People used to believe that the succubus or incubus was accosting them in their sleep. Then it became Aliens. Now science knows that it is sleep paralysis.

As far as the hilighted, how many times has a non-secular place been spared? How many times has it been that an atheist was the sole survivor?

And finally, where are these strange powers that gave skeptics no choice but to believe?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

If you go with the more correct term, "evidence" instead of "proof", then you're also obligated to get into a discussion about the quality of evidence needed to be acceptable, which will lead you down a long and lonely road.

I don't think there is any real problem with the concept of "evidence".

True, religious people and philosophers often seem to get into a huge tangle about trying to define in a dictionary what is meant by the word "evidence". But in several centuries of increasingly successful science, scientists don't seem to have any problem deciding what is valid "evidence".

Eg, discovery of the 3K microwave background is considered evidence supporting the Big Bang model, because the mathematical-physics of that model necessitate the universe being filled with radiation of precisely that energy.

[Bikewer]

Fine for thee and me.... But believers will swear they saw the large crucifix at Medjugore spinning around... And other believers will find that "evidence" compelling; even though a TV camera filming same crucifix at the time showed nothing happening....

An oval bark-scar on a sidewalk tree becomes "The virgin Mary" to believers, even though it looks more like Emperor Palpatine to a Star Wars fan.....

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by IanS

Problem is, whenever their "evidence" is tested objectively, it turns out it was not evidence at all. Despite all the millions of claims of religious "evidence", never once has any such evidence actually been scientifically confirmed. On the contrary, wherever it's been available to testing it's always turned out to be false.

On the other hand, there is a vast mountain of genuine evidence from science that confirms perfectly natural explanations for everything ever discovered.

So far the score is - scientific natural evidence 100-million vs. God evidence Nil.

The important thing to realize about this is that the failure to confirm anything over and over has spawned a secondary theological concept that god is deliberately hiding and wants you to believe withot proof. And from that the further idea that, god being god, he knows when he is being tested and thus hides, so the tests always fail.

Of course that makes the current situation mathematically indistinguishable from not existing.

Is such a creature deserving of worahip?

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by Resume

Miraculous like . . . what exactly?

I'm guessing that to the average shmoe, arguments like "God exists because morality must originate from something that transcends humanity" or "God exists because what we find in the universe has to be a product of conscious thought and action" (keep in mind I disagree with these) are much less powerful arguments than "God exists because Mary appeared on a tree in New Jersey" or "God exists because I saw a statue of him drink milk" or "God exists because he protected all of those mosques in Indonesia when the Tsunami destroyed everything else." But it's an open question.

[DuvalHMFIC]

In the immortal words of Penn Jillette, "I have raped and killed everybody that I want to."

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

As far as the hilighted, how many times has a non-secular place been spared? How many times has it been that an atheist was the sole survivor?

The times I had in mind were Hubert Schiffer, a Jesuit who survived the Hiroshima bombing during prayer. Akiko Takakura, a non-Jesuit in a bank closer to the detonation was also spared.

Many mosques in Indonesia were seemingly untouched by the Tsunami (but I bet there were also some that were washed away, and some brothels or gun stores that were untouched as well).

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

And finally, where are these strange powers that gave skeptics no choice but to believe?

If you read about miracle claims (and of course the net has an endless supply) you'll often find narratives that go like this:

1. Some strange thing that verifies some belief occurs.
2. A lot of people see it.
3. Some stubborn skeptics don't believe it and go to see for themselves.
4. The stubborn skeptics change their mind.

A great example is on the milkmiracle.com video. This guy says, roughly, "I am an agnostic, and I don't believe in God, so I'm going to see this so-called milk 'miracle' for myself," then you see the guy watching what's going on, and immediately he comes out and says, "This is a clear indication that God is real."

Another example is in Father John De Marchi's The True Story Of Fatima where he discusses Avelino de Almeida, the editor of the "avowedly anti-clerical" newspaper O Seculo (The Century). Almeida goes to the Cova da Iria and immediately thereafter writes in his anti-clerical newspaper that what he sees is a "demonstration of the existence of God."

There's very often that "convincing the skeptic" narrative in stories about miracles, especially more modern ones, where people actually are asking for some evidence. In trying to convince skeptics who read about such claims, they serve the purpose of sending the message, "Someone like you wanted evidence and they got it, so you too would have been convinced had only you been there."

And it is this sort of thing, I argue, not the more classical arguments about the existence of God (morality, creation, etc.), that gets the most people to come to the temples.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The important thing to realize about this is that the failure to confirm anything over and over has spawned a secondary theological concept that god is deliberately hiding and wants you to believe withot proof. And from that the further idea that, god being god, he knows when he is being tested and thus hides, so the tests always fail.

Of course that makes the current situation mathematically indistinguishable from not existing.

Is such a creature deserving of worahip?

Sure. But the claim that god is not detected because he is hiding, is not in itself "evidence". That's actually the very opposite of evidence ... it's a claim of “hidden evidence” undetected.

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The important thing to realize about this is that the failure to confirm anything over and over has spawned a secondary theological concept that god is deliberately hiding and wants you to believe withot proof. And from that the further idea that, god being god, he knows when he is being tested and thus hides, so the tests always fail.

I agree that when believers are confronted with the Benson Prayer Experiment, the one where heart patients were prayed for, and their results were not all that different from the heart patients who were not prayed for, they'd more likely retreat and say God actually answered "no" to more of the prayers than he would have if nobody was trying to quantify the results, than just say it's probably because nobody's answering prayers. But most people haven't heard of such things, I would bet.

Most of the world probably hears far more about apparitions and miracles and mystical knowledge than about studies that say, at best, God acts as though he doesn't exist when people try to use rigor to check for him. And as ridiculous as that sounds to you or me, it wouldn't sound ridiculous to someone who thinks a 2,000 year old Jewish mother appeared in the sun not a century ago, or that a statue of an elephant man was literally drinking milk that people spoonfed him, or that the creator of the universe is more interested in saving mosques from a storm than stopping the storm from occuring.

For people that believe those things, the conclusion "the patients who were prayed for did just as well as the patients who were not prayed for because God isn't there to answer prayers" isn't an option.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

A great example is on the milkmiracle.com video. This guy says, roughly, "I am an agnostic, and I don't believe in God, so I'm going to see this so-called milk 'miracle' for myself," then you see the guy watching what's going on, and immediately he comes out and says, "This is a clear indication that God is real."

Sounds like a terrible skeptic to me.

What if I got on camera and said "I'm a skeptic, but I hear this guy David Copperfield can make the statue of liberty disappear." Then I go to watch his show, and poof, the statue of liberty is gone. And with that, I declare "This is a clear indication that Mr. Copperfield is a master of witchcraft."

Oh and not sure if it's been addressed here before, but I'm hardly impressed that people can poor milk down the front of a statue. I can do that.

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

Sounds like a terrible skeptic to me.

What if I got on camera and said "I'm a skeptic, but I hear this guy David Copperfield can make the statue of liberty disappear." Then I go to watch his show, and poof, the statue of liberty is gone. And with that, I declare "This is a clear indication that Mr. Copperfield is a master of witchcraft."

It's incredible the number of miracle claims out there that include that exact kind of narrative. Here's another:

"Ven. Dominic of Jesus and Mary... levitated while in an ecstasy in the presence of King Philip II of Spain. On another occasion, while he was rising in the air, he was grabbed by a skeptic who thought the levitation to be a ruse, only to find himself being carried up with the Saint, which frightened him, so Ven. Dominic let him go and he fell to the ground, which caused him an injury. [Cruz, pp. 27-28.]" (from here)

Message: Don't be a skeptic or you'll fall on your ass.

[Finster]

The problem I have with these kind of arguments about "miracles" is that even if you have something that has no scientific explanation, that is not evidence for god any more than it is evidence for leprechauns, aliens, or magic invisible omnipotent hedgehogs.

What's wrong with saying "We don't know but if we investigate maybe we can figure it out"

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

It's incredible the number of miracle claims out there that include that exact kind of narrative. Here's another:

"Ven. Dominic of Jesus and Mary... levitated while in an ecstasy in the presence of King Philip II of Spain. On another occasion, while he was rising in the air, he was grabbed by a skeptic who thought the levitation to be a ruse, only to find himself being carried up with the Saint, which frightened him, so Ven. Dominic let him go and he fell to the ground, which caused him an injury. [Cruz, pp. 27-28.]" (from here)

Message: Don't be a skeptic or you'll fall on your ass.

All it proves is the wire and lift mechanism didn't break under the weight of two people. Clearly it already worked.

Does that pass for thinking and proof in the religious mind? That the only doubt was whether the person was going up in the air, and that your eyes weren't enough to rely on?

"Oh! I didn't believe he was actually going up so I grabbed him. Yep. He was actually going up!"

"Did you check for thin wires in shadows or poles under cloth from behind a curtain right there?"

'No, you don't get it. He was going up! I wasn't imagining it."

[franklinveaux]

There are certainly many people who say they have evidence for a belief in their god or gods, whether that evidence is a stone statue that weeps or the name of Allah appearing in a slice of toast or whatever.

The problem, as I see it, is that few people really understand what "evidence" is.

When you look at something which purports to act as evidence for anything, whether it's the identity of a murderer in a court case or a claim of Bigfoot or a claim that there is an invisible omnipotent being who created the universe and has a detailed list of restrictions on what clothes women are allowed to wear (and as a side note, why does it seem that nearly every major god or set of gods through history are so obsessed with women's clothing?), there are a number of factors you have to examine in order to determine whether or not that "evidence" actually is evidence:

- Whether or not there are alternative explanations for the supposed evidence. Seeing water leak down the face of a statue might be construed as evidence of a god, but another plausible scenario might be the presence of a leaky wastewater drainpipe passing over the statue, from which sewage spills onto the head of the statue.

- Whether or not the supposed evidence bears a direct, non-inferential relationship to the thing it purportedly supports. A swirly pattern of burnt and unburnt toast might resemble Arabic script for Allah, but then so might many other random patterns. Human beings are wired to see faces in many random patterns, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a face which is perceived in some random background is actually the face of Jesus; it might as easily be the face of L. Ron Hubbard, or the face of Shiva, or the face of Buddha, or (far more likely) not actually a face at all.

- The evidence, to be valid, must be reproducible. If the evidence suddenly disappears when it is examined closely, or in the presence of a stage magician, or when the leaky drainpipe is moved, then it's not actually evidence at all.

There's more, of course; a complete dissertation on what constitutes "evidence" wouldn't fit here. The short version is, most people who claim "evidence" of a god or gods actually start with the premise that their belief is true, then look for things that might be interpreted to support their belief. If you actually care about evidence, for real, then you can not assume what you're trying to prove, unless you're trying to prove you're a blockhead.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

It's incredible the number of miracle claims out there that include that exact kind of narrative. Here's another:

"Ven. Dominic of Jesus and Mary... levitated while in an ecstasy in the presence of King Philip II of Spain. On another occasion, while he was rising in the air, he was grabbed by a skeptic who thought the levitation to be a ruse, only to find himself being carried up with the Saint, which frightened him, so Ven. Dominic let him go and he fell to the ground, which caused him an injury. [Cruz, pp. 27-28.]" (from here)

Message: Don't be a skeptic or you'll fall on your ass.

Again, something Copperfield could have done. Why am I supposed to believe this is a miracle? Copperfield used to float all the while having people run hoops all around him so you knew nothing was connected to him. If you were to ask him how, he wouldn't say it was a miracle. He'd tell you it was a clever trick.

And you're really into that milk thing right? Have you not watched the video? Do you not see that the milk is literally running down the front of the statues? That is called "tipping the spoon slightly", not a miracle by any stretch.

[franklinveaux]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

I agree that when believers are confronted with the Benson Prayer Experiment, the one where heart patients were prayed for, and their results were not all that different from the heart patients who were not prayed for, they'd more likely retreat and say God actually answered "no" to more of the prayers than he would have if nobody was trying to quantify the results, than just say it's probably because nobody's answering prayers.

You know, that reminds me of something I've always wondered about.

I've heard the claim that double-blind studies of the efficacy of prayer can never be reliable, because god will not answer prayers if he knows that the results are being quantified (usually, the reasoning goes, because faith should be enough, and therefore god will never provide proof of his existence).

So what would happen if someone were to do a statistical analysis of faith healing and prayer from, say, the 1940s? Would the faithful say that since god exists outside of space and time, god would refuse to answer those prayers back in the 40s, knowing that in 2012, someone would attempt to quantify whether or not prayer actually worked? Would our prayers today go unanswered because sixty years from now, some researcher is going to put together a statistical study of the efficacy of prayer using data from today?

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

Again, something Copperfield could have done. Why am I supposed to believe this is a miracle? Copperfield used to float all the while having people run hoops all around him so you knew nothing was connected to him. If you were to ask him how, he wouldn't say it was a miracle. He'd tell you it was a clever trick.

And you're really into that milk thing right? Have you not watched the video? Do you not see that the milk is literally running down the front of the statues? That is called "tipping the spoon slightly", not a miracle by any stretch.

Just to be clear, I think it's all a bunch of "bachelor of science," (hopefully that gets around the censor). I'm into the milk thing, yes, but I think what was happening was people pouring milk onto statues, not Hindu gods quenching their thirst. But despite what I and probably every non-Hindu, and probably a number of Hindus, believe, some people got insanely sure that this thing verified their belief, as people did with the the Fatima thing, the tsunami thing, the levitation thing, and so much else. I understand that it's all a bunch of lunacy, but a lot of people believe that stuff anyway, and can't be swayed.

That wasn't the point of the thread initially. The point was that when people like you and me say, "there's no credible evidence whatsoever," these people will think we've been living in a cave and have merely never heard of the trillions of miracles that they have completely bought into as providing "creidble evidence." They'll think we just don't know about all the credible evidence that they know about (even though, just to stress it, it's not credible evidence). That was my theory anyway. Do you disagree with it?

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

You know, that reminds me of something I've always wondered about.

I've heard the claim that double-blind studies of the efficacy of prayer can never be reliable, because god will not answer prayers if he knows that the results are being quantified (usually, the reasoning goes, because faith should be enough, and therefore god will never provide proof of his existence).

So what would happen if someone were to do a statistical analysis of faith healing and prayer from, say, the 1940s? Would the faithful say that since god exists outside of space and time, god would refuse to answer those prayers back in the 40s, knowing that in 2012, someone would attempt to quantify whether or not prayer actually worked? Would our prayers today go unanswered because sixty years from now, some researcher is going to put together a statistical study of the efficacy of prayer using data from today?

What a good idea! Try going back as far as possible. People will get mad at your for retroactively forcing God to not have answered any prayers for decades. Your only problem is the control: What non-prayed for events would you collect from that same timespan?

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

Just to be clear, I think it's all a bunch of "bachelor of science," (hopefully that gets around the censor). I'm into the milk thing, yes, but I think what was happening was people pouring milk onto statues, not Hindu gods quenching their thirst. But despite what I and probably every non-Hindu, and probably a number of Hindus, believe, some people got insanely sure that this thing verified their belief, as people did with the the Fatima thing, the tsunami thing, the levitation thing, and so much else. I understand that it's all a bunch of lunacy, but a lot of people believe that stuff anyway, and can't be swayed.

That wasn't the point of the thread initially. The point was that when people like you and me say, "there's no credible evidence whatsoever," these people will think we've been living in a cave and have merely never heard of the trillions of miracles that they have completely bought into as providing "creidble evidence." They'll think we just don't know about all the credible evidence that they know about (even though, just to stress it, it's not credible evidence). That was my theory anyway. Do you disagree with it?

Now I'm following you, and I couldn't agree more. Ignore my stupidity, I completely mis-read your OP.

It's not just true with religion either. You see this same thing in the bigfoot threads, conspiracy threads, pretty much anything that people want to believe in. They'll find evidence, that in their mind, confirms their belief.

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

Now I'm following you, and I couldn't agree more. Ignore my stupidity, I completely mis-read your OP.

It's not just true with religion either. You see this same thing in the bigfoot threads, conspiracy threads, pretty much anything that people want to believe in. They'll find evidence, that in their mind, confirms their belief.

It's all right, I have a way of getting off-topic. I really should get into some alien threads, just to compare the two sorts of strange claims. Besides, I like that sash that Worf wore in The Next Generation.

[JoeBentley]

You could pretty much just go to the thread OntarioSasquatch started about "Stop saying there's no evidence for Bigfoot" and replace "Bigfoot" with "God" and there would be no need for this thread.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

I hope I was clear enough. Does anybody think that saying there is not a single shred of proof for deities, whether that statement is true or not, might come off to believers as slightly/extremely uninformed?

It is for this reason that I am always very careful in how I word it - I don't say "there is not a single shred of proof", I say "There is no good evidence."

Evidence is a much better word than proof in this context; and talking about "good" evidence then allows you to point out the flaws in anecdotal and other such purported evidence if they are suggested.

[Ray Brady]

When dealing with an inscrutable, secretive creator deity, either nothing in the universe is evidence, or everything is.

I prefer to say that I find no compelling reason to believe. That includes not merely claims of evidence, but also logical or philosophical arguments.

[Robert Oz]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

What's there to take on faith, when Mary appeared so very many times to humans, or when Allah defended so many mosques from the Indonesian tsunami, or when Ganesh drank so very much milk?

I hope I was clear enough. Does anybody think that saying there is not a single shred of proof for deities, whether that statement is true or not, might come off to believers as slightly/extremely uninformed?

My explanation to believers of Marian apparitions (to take one of your examples) for why their 'evidence' or 'proof' is in fact neither, would be as follows:

"The reason that Mary appearing to humans is not evidence or proof of God is the very same reason that mosques surviving the Indonesian tsunami is not evidence or proof of Allah, and milk disappearing from a spoon held to the mouth of a statue of Ganesh is not evidence or proof of Ganesh.

As soon as an alleged miracle is supposed to prove the existence of a deity other than your own, you know precisely why such alleged miracles are not evidence or proof of anything."

[Sophronius]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

The problem, as I see it, is that few people really understand what "evidence" is.

*snip*

While I agree that people don't really understand what evidence is, I have to disagree with your criteria somewhat. What kind of evidence are you talking about? Scientific? Legal? If we're talking bayesian evidence it is actually much simpler: Y is evidence in favour of Z if Y makes Z more likely to be true. Evidence of something supernatural occurring, even if it is not clear that that supernatural thing is Jesus or aliens or whatever, is evidence in favour of the Christian god since the Christian god "hypothesis" requires supernatural things to occur. Likewise, a supernatural event would not have to be reproducible: If a prophet were to announce that the sun would turn blue at a specified date, and the prophesy were to be exactly fulfilled at that time in front of everyone, then it would be entirely unreasonable to say "Ok nice, now do it again or it doesn't count."

I often see sceptics argue this with christians, saying stuff like "well we can't be 100% certain that that actually happened so it's not evidence", or "well there might be another explanation so it is not evidence", but often I think this is too harsh. The requirements for evidence are much, much weaker than for proof. Rather in most cases the evidence presented by believers fails because it's just no more than you would expect to arise purely due to chance and selection bias, and it entirely fails to outweigh the low prior probability of the Christian god existing.

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

I've heard the claim that double-blind studies of the efficacy of prayer can never be reliable, because god will not answer prayers if he knows that the results are being quantified (usually, the reasoning goes, because faith should be enough, and therefore god will never provide proof of his existence).

I thought of another obvious thing: if "faith should be enough, and therefore god will never provide proof if his existence," then what are we to make of all those miracles that theists believe are totally 100% incontrovertible proof that God is there?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

All anybody can do about the question of God existing is a guess, but for billions of people, all the supernatural beliefs they have are what support their belief in God. I get the strong feeling that faith isn't even that necessary. What's there to take on faith, when Mary appeared so very many times to humans, or when Allah defended so many mosques from the Indonesian tsunami, or when Ganesh drank so very much milk?

I once heard someone say that the problem wasn't that Noah's Ark wasn't real, it was that they've found it in 3 dozen different places.