# Scientific evidence of God's existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043 "2008-10-29T03:11:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/281 "2008-11-07T06:11:00Z")
Oh crap, here we go again. :eek:😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/282 "2008-11-07T06:31:20Z")
> [@dehacker](#): > > **Fantome** , obviously you and I disagree whether or not a debate about the sufficiency of scientific evidence of God’s existence belongs in a thread about scientific evidence of God’s existence. I have no problem with that. What I **do** have a problem with is you calling me out for it because you don’t think it belongs in the thread. Leave that to a Mod, or take it to the pit. Please. You asked me about what should be debated here and I responded. You’re obviously now the one with the problem so you can contact a mod or go to the Pit. > [@dehacker](#): > > [This post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10374546&postcount=33) by **erislover** , just a few above the one you cite, is why I don’t think it meets the conditions laid out. I read that as stating that he would be questioning the beings definition as “God”, not questioning its very existence itself. However, **erislover** can be the final judge of what he meant. So you just want to ignore the post by **erislover** that I quoted? **nd\_n8** stated _“No scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals…can ever change their minds.”_ to which **erislover** replied _“Probably I am one of those people”_. Don’t pretend I haven’t sufficiently provided the cite you asked for. > [@dehacker](#): > > Here I think you are agreeing with me. I have been saying all along that people wouldn’t deny existence, they would debate identity. Just stop already. This is about the existence of God. No one claimed that some atheists would never admit that a being such as David Blaine exists; it’s that even if there were _scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals_…that David Blaine were God they would not accept it. Quotes in this very thread have already proven that this is so. > [@dehacker](#): > > A straw man fallacy would be easy to demonstrate if it existed. Intent doesn’t enter into it. Yes, intent does enter in to it. You made a statement. It seemed to at least two people in this thread that it were to make it seem as if you were implying that a poster held that position. It seemed like a straw man to me. If you say it wasn’t, I won’t argue with you as to what you intended. > [@Sandwich](#): > > But when the proof was presented that they exist, the debates stopped. Why do you think it would be different if the gods revealed themselves to us? At least two posters in this thread have said they wouldn’t be convinced. I think that’s good enough reason. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/283 "2008-11-07T06:59:07Z")
Hmmm… I thought you were finished? Guess not. > [@Fantome](#): > > Please. You asked me about what should be debated here and I responded. You’re obviously now the one with the problem so you can contact a mod or go to the Pit. **Fantome** , you called me out on this, for reasons I am definitely having trouble understanding. I even explicitly stated above I don’t have a problem with us disagreeing – isn’t that central to a debate? But you do seem to be taking this quite personally and making it about me instead of the topic at hand, so perhaps the pit would be better. > [@Fantome](#): > > So you just want to ignore the post by **erislover** that I quoted? **nd\_n8** stated _“No scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals…can ever change their minds.”_ to which **erislover** replied _“Probably I am one of those people”_. > > Don’t pretend I haven’t sufficiently provided the cite you asked for. **Fantome** , please don’t embarass yourself. How could I be ignoring what I specifically addressed? I noted your response and gave my counter argument as to why I don’t think it is sufficient by using \*\*erislover’\*\*s own words, and even stated that \*\*erislover \*\*himself should be the final judge of his meaning. How much further do I need to go? > [@Fantome](#): > > Just stop already. This is about the existence of God. No one claimed that some atheists would never admit that a being such as David Blaine exists; it’s that even if there were _scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals_…that David Blaine were God they would not accept it. Quotes in this very thread have already proven that this is so. The original claim by \*\*x-ray vision \*\*was this: _I doubt any degree of evidence for God/gods would stop the debating regarding His/Her/their existence._ Substitute David Blaine for (God/gods) and (His/Her/their) and I believe the statement fails. I think it fails for anything you would substitute, and I think \*\*erislover \*\*would support me, though obviously I defer to him on that. As I keep repeating, probably \*\*erislover \*\*and others would debate the being’s qualifications to be called “The God”, preferring maybe “a god”, or “super advanced alien”. Funny thing is, I actually think you agree with me. > [@Fantome](#): > > Yes, intent does enter in to it. You made a statement. It seemed to at least two people in this thread that it were to make it seem as if you were implying that a poster held that position. It seemed like a straw man to me. If you say it wasn’t, I won’t argue with you as to what you intended. Hmm, strangely enough, [The Skeptic’s Dictionary](http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson9.html) doesn’t agree with you. I quote: [QUOTE=The Skeptic’s Dictionary] It doesn’t matter whether the misrepresentation or distortion is accidental and due to misunderstanding the argument or is intentional and aimed at making it easier to refute. Either way, one commits the straw man fallacy. [/QUOTE] > [@Fantome](#): > > At least two posters in this thread have said they wouldn’t be convinced. I think that’s good enough reason. You have cited **erislover** , which I challenged, but I don’t think that qualifies as two, does it? Maybe my math skills are a little rusty. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/284 "2008-11-07T08:18:55Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > At least two posters in this thread have said they wouldn’t be convinced. I think that’s good enough reason. Upon reviewing this a little more closely, I see you also cited **Der trihs** , which I missed the first time. However, I likewise read him as supporting my position [in this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10393989&postcount=152) earlier in the thread. Of course, he would have to be the final judge of where he stands on this issue. But I suspect he would go where the scientific evidence leads, while perhaps still disputing the being’s identification as “God”. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/285 "2008-11-07T08:28:57Z")
Where’s the evidence? What page of this thread was it presented on? ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/286 "2008-11-07T13:05:39Z")
I think it’s a nice time here to reorient myself to the OP. “What scientific evidence of God’s existence would change someone’s mind?” I also think it’s a nice time to abandon my first contribution because after some contemplation and some reading of other posts I think that if God is simply a loose term that encompasses a higher reality than our own familiar 4 dimensions then that would not really be evidence of “God”, just evidence of a higher reality. But as to my second assertion I still hold that not all, not 100%, not every aspect of personality is bio-chemical. At some point there is still an individuality than cannot be duplicated. The physical bits can be duplicated - DNA, molecules, cells, etc. The bits that are bio-chemical can be duplicated - moods, memories, emotions, addictions But there is something in each individual that cannot be duplicated. There is a self awareness, a concept of individuality that is mine alone. Although even the awareness of this individuality is bio-chemical, the individuality is not. If it were then it could be replicated, the meat-Nate and cyber-Nate would have the same individuality. But meat-Nate and cyber-Nate do not have the same individuality by definition. I don’t know, maybe meat-Nate’s individuality can be transferred to cyber-Nate, maybe not. It is that individuality that I believe is not reproducible and by extension not bio-chemical that separates us. So there’s something there, but we don’t know what it is. We know a few things that it is not (physical, chemical reaction, etc.). What the hell is it? It would be easy to hand wave it away and say it’s not a soul, but if it’s not physical and not chemical; if it’s not reproducible and it’s not spiritual because that would be foolish, then what the hell is it? No, the comparison between a copied file or a copied image being different from the original is not a valid one simply because a copied file is not self aware, it is just data. Yes, our data can be copied just like a file but our individual self awareness cannot. This is not scientific evidence of God’s existence but I present it as rational evidence (anecdotal but rational and logical) of the existence of “something” outside of the physical manifestations of our world. If this “something” exists, identified or not, then the irrationality of thought leading to God’s existence may not be as irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/287 "2008-11-07T13:21:39Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > But as to my second assertion I still hold that not all, not 100%, not every aspect of personality is bio-chemical. At some point there is still an individuality than cannot be duplicated. There’s no reason to believe that. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > So there’s something there, but we don’t know what it is. We know a few things that it is not (physical, chemical reaction, etc.). What the hell is it? Your imagination. You are trying to turn something you are making up out of nothing into some profound mystery. It’s not; it’s just an imaginary problem you’ve made up for yourself. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > This is not scientific evidence of God’s existence but I present it as rational evidence (anecdotal but rational and logical) of the existence of “something” outside of the physical manifestations of our world. If this “something” exists, identified or not, then the irrationality of thought leading to God’s existence may not be as irrational. It’s not evidence of ANYTHING. It’s just something you stated without any evidence on a message board. It’s not “rational” or “logical”; in fact, it’s not even anecdotal. It’s just something you made up. ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/288 "2008-11-07T13:22:13Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > BTW, you didn’t respond so some of my other points and questions: > > > [@](#): > > > > Okay, you believe that no harm comes from your belief. So what part about accepting incredible claims without evidence leads to something good? How can you make yourself accept a claim, which is what accepting Pascal’s Wager entails- choosing belief based on what has the better outcome if God ends up existing despite the lack of evidence? > > > [@](#): > > > > Okay, so you realize you’re insignificant. I don’t see how that leads you to accept a claim that has no evidence supporting it. > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s really irrelevant. It’s just as outrageous if he’s made out of nothing or is Casper the Ghost like. Why can’t you relate to someone who believes God is made of material? It seems like you’ve got a lot in common with people like that, unless I’m misunderstanding what you believe God to be. If God were material then there would be observable evidence, a lack of observable evidence should not automatically lead to a conclusion of non-existance nor should it automatically lead to a conclusion of unobservable existance. So yes, I accept the existence of God and the belief side of Pascal’s Wager because I don’t automatically rule out what cannot be proven either way. I rule out little gnomes that live in my stomach because that can be disproven. I rule out a golden chariot that draws the sun across the sky because that can be disproven. Until God can be absolutely disproven, not just declaired illogical or the result of delusional thinking, but actually disproven I cannot rule out His existence. As for being insignificant, once I was able to comprehend scale on an astronomical level and draw comparisons to the scale of our level I concluded that to think out of all of this were are it is irrationally pridefull and self centered. Realizing insignificance is the seed of humility. ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/289 "2008-11-07T13:27:57Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > There’s no reason to believe that. > Your imagination. You are trying to turn something you are making up out of nothing into some profound mystery. It’s not; it’s just an imaginary problem you’ve made up for yourself. > > It’s not evidence of ANYTHING. It’s just something you stated without any evidence on a message board. It’s not “rational” or “logical”; in fact, it’s not even anecdotal. It’s just something you made up. So you are saying that Meat-Der Trihs and Cyber-Der Trihs have the same self awareness? Or are you saying that neither have awareness of themselves? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/290 "2008-11-07T13:43:40Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > So you are saying that Meat-Der Trihs and Cyber-Der Trihs have the same self awareness? Or are you saying that neither have awareness of themselves? They would each have their own self awareness like anyone else; there’s no reason to think otherwise. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > If God were material then there would be observable evidence, a lack of observable evidence should not automatically lead to a conclusion of non-existance nor should it automatically lead to a conclusion of unobservable existance. Yes, it should. Nonexistence is the logical default; especially when the postulated entity violates known physical laws. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > So yes, I accept the existence of God and the belief side of Pascal’s Wager because I don’t automatically rule out what cannot be proven either way. I don’t believe that; I don’t think that a person could actually function that way. You’d be reduced to paranoia by the constant worry that your neighbor might be an alien, your wife/husband a spy, your child planted with a bomb in his lunchbox, your food poisoned. All of which are far more plausible than God existing. I expect that you are like most people who make such claims, and are applying it only to one type of belief : your religious ones. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > I rule out little gnomes that live in my stomach because that can be disproven. > > I rule out a golden chariot that draws the sun across the sky because that can be disproven. > > Until God can be absolutely disproven, not just declaired illogical or the result of delusional thinking, but actually disproven I cannot rule out His existence. Convieniently, a standard of proof that can never be achieved. And one that wouldn’t rule out Sun-drawing golden chariots or goblins in your stomach, either. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > As for being insignificant, once I was able to comprehend scale on an astronomical level and draw comparisons to the scale of our level I concluded that to think out of all of this were are it is irrationally pridefull and self centered. Realizing insignificance is the seed of humility. No; you are religious, and are therefore the opposite of humble. You are declaring the world to be what you want it to be. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/291 "2008-11-07T14:40:13Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > But as to my second **assertion** I still hold that not all, not 100%, not every aspect of personality is bio-chemical. At some point there is still an individuality than cannot be duplicated. > > The physical bits can be duplicated - DNA, molecules, cells, etc. > > The bits that are bio-chemical can be duplicated - moods, memories, emotions, addictions > > But there is something in each individual that cannot be duplicated. I’m glad you recognize this an an assertion, and not anything arrived at through reason and logic. Can we, instead of talking about meat-Curt and cyber-Curt, use another thought experiment? The idea of running in a computer adds a layer of obfuscation - instead let’s use the case of the Star Trek transporter. First, let’s take the case of a hypothetical transporter that takes your body apart atom-by-atom, somehow beams those very same atoms to the receiver, where each atom is re-assembled in its proper place. When all those get re-assembled, is that you? I think everyone would agree that it is. Second, someone improves on the design, and instead of sending the very same atoms to the receiver, the receiver has its own supply of spare atoms, and the transmitter just takes you apart atom-by-atom, then sends the information to the receiver, but recycles your old atoms into its atom-buckets. Now atoms are atoms and are completely indistinguishable if they have the same number of subatomic particles, so it can’t matter whether the “you” that gets assembled actually has your original atoms or not. So is that assembled person “you”? Third, someone else improves the design further, so that the exact position of each atom that makes up the “old you” can be read without having to take you apart. The old you is scanned, that information is transmitted to the receiver, and a new you is built, without ever destroying the old you. Is that new person you as well? I think the answer to all three is “yes.” > [@](#): > > So there’s something there, but we don’t know what it is. We know a few things that it is not (physical, chemical reaction, etc.). What the hell is it? First, you assert that there’s something there non-material, then you beg the question and say that you know there is something non-material and ask what the hell it is. Please establish that there’s even a hint that there may be something, before mysteriously asking what it is. > [@](#): > > So yes, I accept the existence of God and the belief side of Pascal’s Wager because I don’t automatically rule out what cannot be proven either way. Ah, but what if you’re believing in the wrong god? What if the _real_ god is really Thor, who doesn’t at all mind those of us who have no belief, but what really pisses him off is someone worshiping another concept of a god? You are shooting yourself in the foot by having your belief! Switch, man, before it’s too late and you doom your soul to hell! Join us unbelievers! I say that jokingly, but I find that every bit as plausible as the Christian god being real. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/292 "2008-11-07T14:50:47Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > If God were material then there would be observable evidence What sort of evidence would there be for a material God that lived in a galaxy far, far away that obviously chooses not to reveal Himself to us? That He hasn’t is evidence to you that He must be in spirit form? > [@nd\_n8](#): > > a lack of observable evidence should not automatically lead to a conclusion of non-existance nor should it automatically lead to a conclusion of unobservable existance. This seems to contradict the first part above. It also doesn’t answer my question: _“Why can’t you relate to someone who believes God is made of material? It seems like you’ve got a lot in common with people like that, unless I’m misunderstanding what you believe God to be.”_ > [@nd\_n8](#): > > So yes, I accept the existence of God and the belief side of Pascal’s Wager because I don’t automatically rule out what cannot be proven either way. Not automatically ruling Him out is not even close to accepting He exists. You accept that God exists. And you again didn’t answer my questions: _“So what part about accepting incredible claims without evidence leads to something good? How can you make yourself accept a claim, which is what accepting Pascal’s Wager entails- choosing belief based on what has the better outcome if God ends up existing despite the lack of evidence?”_ > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Until God can be absolutely disproven, not just declaired illogical or the result of delusional thinking, but actually disproven I cannot rule out His existence. That’s a much more reasonable stance than believing He exists sans evidence- but you are a believer. Why do you believe in something in which there is no evidence for? > [@nd\_n8](#): > > As for being insignificant, once I was able to comprehend scale on an astronomical level and draw comparisons to the scale of our level I concluded that to think out of all of this were are it is irrationally pridefull and self centered. Realizing insignificance is the seed of humility. I understand why you feel insignificant. But you said, _“That insignificance leads me to belief”_. Why? I can see how realizing how large the universe is can lead one to believe there’s a lot more out there, but how does it lead you to believe there must be a being that started it all? Would you not have been lead to belief if the universe weren’t so grand? ---
**Author:** ![geniios](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@geniios](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geniios)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/293 "2008-11-07T16:10:47Z")
Keep up the good work you know you are successful when they get really irate teehee! > [@dehacker](#): > > Oh crap, here we go again. :eek:😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/294 "2008-11-07T17:54:02Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > I rule out little gnomes that live in my stomach because that can be disproven. > > … > > Until God can be absolutely disproven, not just declaired illogical or the result of delusional thinking, but actually disproven I cannot rule out His existence. Nothing can be \*\*absolutely \*\*disproven. What if the little gnomes that live in your stomach are able to turn themselves invisible at will? That’s why they never show up during surgery or in x-rays. Since we can never have absolute proof of anything the best we can do is go with the preponderence of evidence. There’s no evidence that invisible gnomes live in your stomach. There’s also no evidence that an omnipotent God created the universe. If you’re willing to continue believing in the possibility of God, consistency demands that you also believe in the possibility of invisible stomach gnomes. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/295 "2008-11-07T18:18:00Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > If you’re willing to continue believing in the possibility of God, consistency demands that you also believe in the possibility of invisible stomach gnomes. Only if you believe that the amount of evidence for these two views, not to mention the lack of evidence for competing views, is comparable. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/296 "2008-11-07T18:35:34Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Only if you believe that the amount of evidence for these two views, not to mention the lack of evidence for competing views, is comparable. **nd\_n8** said he ruled out gnomes because they can be disproven but hasn’t ruled out God because God is invisible and can’t be disproven. **Pochacco** asked what he would believe given the possibility that the gnomes were also invisible. Of course the bigger problem is that **nd\_n8** has said earlier that believes God exists, which is quite a step up from simply not ruling out His existence. Since this is a thread regarding God’s existence and you’re claiming there’s evidence for Him, let’s here it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/297 "2008-11-07T18:41:10Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Since this is a thread regarding God’s existence and you’re claiming there’s evidence for Him, let’s here it. You’re putting words in my mouth. I was responding to your comments on the alleged inconsistency of **nd\_n8** ’s claim. This is not logically equivalent to declaring that we do have evidence for God’s existence. FTR, I do believe in God, for reasons that I’ve discussed in a great many other threads. That’s entirely irrelevant to the objection that I raised in this thread though, and I’m not going to let you treat my response as a positive argument for God’s existence. It’s not, and it’s illogical to treat it as such. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/298 "2008-11-07T18:45:39Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Only if you believe that the amount of evidence for these two views, not to mention the lack of evidence for competing views, is comparable. There’s zero evidence for either, so I don’t really see the difference. Although I have to say that I find the idea of invisible stomach gnomes to be somewhat more plausible than the idea of an omnipotent God. Consider: 1. We know that species of parasites exist that live in the digestive tracts of other animals. 2. We know that intelligent creatures have evolved at least one in the universe (us). 3. We know that some animals have evolved camouflage that makes them hard to see. So it’s not ENTIRELY ridiculous to imagine a species that combines all these properties – small intelligent creatures that colonize human stomachs and until now have managed to avoid detection. It’s very, very, very unlikely, but we can at least imagine a constellation of circumstances that would make it possible. But we have no evidence for any beings with properties similar to God. Able to transcend time and space? Immune to the laws of thermodynamics? Believing in God requires a much greater willing suspension of disbelief than believing in invisible stomach gnomes. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/299 "2008-11-07T18:48:07Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > There’s zero evidence for either, so I don’t really see the difference. But if **nd\_n8** … or anyone else for that matter… does not believe that there is zero evidence for either, then there is no inconsistency in believing in God while rejecting the existence of gnomes. For the sake of argument, that person might be wrong, but it would be incorrect to accuse that person of inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/300 "2008-11-07T18:50:01Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You’re putting words in my mouth > > … > > I’m not going to let you treat my response as a positive argument for God’s existence. It’s not, and it’s illogical to treat it as such. You said, _“Only if you believe that the amount of evidence for these two views, not to mention the lack of evidence for competing views, is comparable.”_ You’re certainly insinuating that the evidence for God is greater than the evidence for invisible gnomes; I’m hardly putting words in your mouth. > [@JThunder](#): > > FTR, I do believe in God, for reasons that I’ve discussed in a great many other threads. Are they evidence based reasons? If they are, why not tell us what the evidence is here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=16)