No evidence, no existence?

Stupid question. That's right, without evidence it didn't happen.

So...God is a tree. A being among many gods, produced from another being (like the Greek gods). You are comparing a small object to a large significant being.

Besides, no evidence means its VERY unlikely. You could think of it like this: You may say there is no evidence for the big bang. Well, guess what, "No evidence, no existance?"

Rubbish argument based on very basic statistics (most things a not impossible, just incredibly unlikely to Very likely. Nothing is certain.) Besides, it works for both sides (ignoring the fact that one side has evidence).

P.S. Also, the argument basically admits that there is no evidence, otherwise the argument is not applicable.

No, the tree existed at one point. BUT, no one could possibly know about that tree's existence, so it would be pointless to believe in it. Otherwise, you'd have to believe in millions of other nonsensical things on no evidence at all.

It's not that no evidence implies no existence. It's that no evidence means that there isn't sufficient reason to believe in existence. All things are possible, so some things MIGHT exist, but if there isn't good reason or evidence to believe in something, then there is no point in believing in it.

I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.

That does not mean there is no God.

Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

Therefore, it is possible that God exists.

If it is possible, then faith has its place.

If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)

It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.

But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.

Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.

Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?

If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God.

If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?

Does Christianity fit within that criteria?

If not, why not?

Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example:

Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?

Even if that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you?

How would you know?

Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?

Do you want Him to make square circles or some other self-contradictory phenomena, or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?

If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because He would violate His own nature -- which He cannot do.

Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?

Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?

But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?

If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.

Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.

If so, then God becomes unknowable to you, and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.

Do you define the miraculous out of existence?

If so, on what basis do you do this?

If you assume that science can explain all phenomena, then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.

If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.

Are you trying to be stupid or is just natural?

A tree sprout that grows, thrives, dies and decomposes WILL LEAVE EVIDENCE YOU IDIOT.

Get over yourself.

Are you saying that god was born, grew, thrived, died, and decomposed?

Is that what your comparison is?

I would think it would be similar to : "A tree always existed, was the most powerful tree ever, and is still here."

And for THAT tree, there is no evidence. You lose.

So you're suggesting gods existed at one point, died, decomposed, then disappeared?

Even if we go with that theory it suggests there is no reason to listen to anything any of them (allegedly) ever said to anyone, as they no longer exist.

Nope.

It does, however, mean that if somebody is going to claim that *particular* tree existed, that claim wouldn't have any merit, because it can't be supported by evidence.

Peace.

the definition of existence is,

–noun

1.

the state or fact of existing; being.

2.

continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.

3.

mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.

The fact that we didn't see it, doesn't mean it never existed.

So if it sprouts, grows and thrives it exists.

You can't proof such a tree ever existed, this is irrelevant.