What exactly is this evidence that God is real, that Christians keep claiming to have but never present?

The existence or non-existence of an entity (be it you, me, or God) does not depend on what others will accept as evidence. If you don't accept evidence for the existence of a being, your opinion does not make that being non-existent, in the same manner as someones opinion does not make a being existent.

Edit: If you want specific examples of evidence for the existence of God here are a few to get you started.

1. In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It's a conservation of energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, but however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now believers know,of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science.

Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, even though science has proven that impossible. Option B: Everything in the universe has ALWAYS existed for all of eternity, which, by the way is scientifically impossible due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to violate them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

2. The fine tuning of the universe:

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below.

Parameter Max. Deviation

Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40

Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55

Mass of Universe1 1:10^59

Cosmological Constant 1:10^120

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (p. 115)

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%

3. Logic:

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions?

In pursuit of my new quest for thumbs down, I offer the following... There is a massive difference between evidence and irrefutable (or even refutable) proof. Proof of God does not exist. Period. If someone were to see God, this would be an individual experience that would not "prove" His existence, any more than those who have seen aliens or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot or my invisible friend Andres Alejandro Smith have "proven" the existence of any of them. Evidence is an entirely different animal. If Bob Sanders in Topeka, Kansas says he saw God's face with a speech bubble in a lump of mashed potatoes, that is evidence. Its validity may be questioned, and there may be more likely explanations for Bob's saying that he saw God's face with a speech bubble, but it is evidence, to be accorded whatever weight may be appropriate. This becomes important when believers and atheists talk at cross-purposes. A Christian (or any theist) sees evidence and is convinced - or, more likely, begins by being convinced, and then interprets evidence as fitting with that conviction. An atheist sees evidence but finds alternative explanations. The alternative explanations may be more likely, just as likely, etc. - but both sides are interpreting evidence, usually in accordance with pre-determined beliefs. The evidence? It's everything. Personal experience. Stories told and passed around. A universe that came into being (an assumption, of course) when the laws of physics would dictate that matter cannot be created from nothing. The intricacies of life, and the odds of their coming together by chance. All can be explained in different ways, both with and without the intervention of a God. But to claim that the inability to prove God's existence means there is no evidence, or to suggest that EITHER side of the discussion is foolish, stupid, blind, ignorant, etc. for interpreting the evidence differently is itself an abuse of logic. Christians do it; atheists do it too. The name-calling (a.k.a. ad hominem attack - another fallacy...) is just another way to speak around the question, rather than to it. That approach is easier, to be sure, but it's neither helpful nor particularly persuasive.

First, let's discuss different kinds of evidence. In a trial we use eye-witness testimony as evidence. In science we use experimental evidence. In history we use documents as evidence. There is no logical statement that I can give you that in and of itself proves that God exists. There is also no logical statement that I can think of that proves that gravity exists. If I wanted to prove to you that gravity exists I would tell you to go drop something on the ground. Without witnesses or scientific experiments it is also nearly impossible to prove that someone is guilty of a crime. Logic is horrible evidence.

Eye-witness testimony: Many people have testified that they have seen angels that have testified of God or that have seen God himself. You may claim that these people are either crazy or are lying. You may also believe that witnesses in a murder trial are crazy or lying. The point is that the testimony is evidence and each person has to weigh the evidence to see if they believe it is credible. I do not believe that eye-witness testimony is conclusive evidence of the existence of God, but I do believe that it should be considered.

Experimental evidence: This is where the true evidence comes. In statistics you always test the null hypothesis. It is nearly impossible to set up a statistical experiment to test the positive hypothesis. If you set up your experiments correctly it only takes ONE failed experiment to prove that God does not exist. All of the rules I am going to give you come from the Book of Mormon. First, Ether 12:6 - ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. Let's be clear. You will receive a witness, but only if you are sincere and open. I have asked many of my atheist friends, "If you were God, what could you as God do to prove to you as an atheist that he exists?" They almost always answer "nothing." If God were to appear to them they would believe that they were going crazy. If he were to heal them of some horrible disease they would believe it was just coincidence. Even though there is evidence that God exists, if you are determined not to believe in him you will find a way to explain away any evidence that he gives you. In order to receive evidence that he exists you have to 1) at least be open to the possibility that he might exist, and 2) be willing to live the commandments when you discover that he does exist. Here is the experiment from Moroni 10:4 - "And when ye receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a SINCERE HEART, with REAL INTENT, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." It is the evidence that comes after this experiment that to me proves that God exists. Unless you have experienced this you cannot understand it. Try the experiment. If it doesn't work then you can say, "I tried that and it didn't work." However, you cannot judge the evidence until you try it.

I just *love* when people claim to have not only evidence, but *proof*, that God exists.

When you ask them for it, however, you will be greeted by one of two responses.

1) Something that doesn't even approach being evidence, or even *similar* to evidence, usually a logical fallacy, or

2) Silence.

Well, God has made Himself known to us in two ways; that is, in a natural, and in a supernatural way. The first, meaning that He made himself known by the visible world, which He has created and continually governs; for nobody can reasonably think that the world has made itself, or that the regular and perfect order in it originated and subsists by itself. Also, He made Himself known by the voice of conscience, which admonishes us to dread an invisible avenger of sin, and to hope in a rewarder of virtue.

Conscience has not been made by man. Its action is often so painful that man would prefer, if he could, to be without it. It exists in us by the will of God, who made it an essential part of our human nature, in order that we might be taught by its voice.

The supernatural manner in which God made Himself known to man is that of Revelation, which He has given us by the Prophets, and last of all by His Son (Incidentally, not one living soul today denies the existence of Christ, all the historical archives ever published reveal such evidence to us, that Jesus Christ indeed had walked the earth, been a great teacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate). If you are really interested in this subject, you might be compelled to study the life and testimony of Jesus Christ, which should help you get started on your quest for the truth.

Ok so I believe God is real because the Bible says so, this is just like saying in logical terms that I believe since im a computer scientist that my code will compile if I follow the outline my textbook gives me or that some mathematical principles hold true. Next we accept these "facts" as truth because of the book they are in has been tested and tested and the material in it has pasted the test of either time and validity. So with Christians and God being real I know God is real because His book(The Bible) says so. The Bible is the number 1 best selling book of all time, it has been challenged countless times, and so far stood the test of time and validity. You want some evidence here you go:

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."

Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.

From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.

Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.

These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.

The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.

It's funny to see the religious people coming in with answers such as "go to church, believe the bible." That's not evidence. That's blind faith.

Also, Annie, stop dodging the question simply because you can't answer it. No evidence means no existence. Simple as that.

What is your POINT exactly ????? I do NOT, repeat, do NOT have any *proof* to hand over, put in a zip lock baggie or under a micro scope.... There I said it.... Now what ?? I suppose YOU have *proof* that what YOU claim is the truth IS the truth ?? Oh, and NO quotes from books, or people, links to websites, insults, claims that I have evidence, or any of the other things you listed... I want what YOU, yourself, with your own two hands, eyes, ears, mouth, brain, etc., HAVE as evidence..... Got any ???? go in peace..... God bless

*edit*, my dear little baby sparton, did you NOT see the first of my answer ? Do I need to get some glasses for you ?? Do you NOT know how to read ????

There is NO DOUBT that there is plenty of evidence.

But the issue is whether everyone is CONVINCED by that evidence. Obviously, most people are convinced (since most of the earth's population believes in the existence of God) but many are not.

So clearly, the evidence doesn't meet everyone's standard of PROOF. But that doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

I was an atheist until my 30's. I was doing graduate work in mathematics when I "changed sides" and the evidence for God which I found in mathematics (and science in general) played a big role. But would I ever claim that everyone would find that evidence convincing? Absolutely not.

And as I expected, I already have received many thumbs-down votes. Why? The skeptics absolutely HATE that fact that everything I wrote is true. (It will remain true until atheist views become FAR MORE common that the tiny minority atheists represent at present.) But opinion polls mean very little. So why the strong reactions about this topic? Think about it.

What exactly is this evidence that God is false, that Atheists keep claiming to have but never present?

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.