>> There is cosmological evidence for the existence of God
There is teleological evidence for the existence of God
There is ontological evidence for the existence of God
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal morality
There is evidence for the existence of God from universal religious nature of man
There is the evidence from history regarding the person of Jesus Christ. (specifically, the claims of Christ, the evidence for the resurrection, and the changed lives of apostles).
There is evidence for the existence of God in the claims of people who assert that they have experienced him directly (as you allude to below)
There is evidence for the existence of God in the very fact that people assume a rational dialogue makes sense, or a difference.
There is evidence for the existence of God in the specific “history told beforehand” documentations of everything from the rise and collapse of Mesopotamian kindgoms to the events surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ, some of which were foretold over 1000 years before their enactment.
All these and many more are clear evidences. You may not accept them as COMPELLING evidence<<
I would say rather that none of them are scientific evidence.
To say there is order and thus God is a philosophical argument - and even then Plato was talking a gods not God.
Cosmological evidence? That argument basically says that because the universe has a beginning and beginning have causes there is a god and he is the cause. Its really poor logic.
The life of Jesus. We have two references I am aware of outside of Church records. There were clearly Christians, from the Roman records. I believe in Jesus. But that doesn’t prove God.
I could go but in the end its all much like my experience. My experience is convincing for me but I don’t expect it to be convincing for you - I would, however encourage you to be open to hearing from Him. You won’t regret it.
And I agree with you about people who claim God spoke to them. Some do it for bad reasons and I think they are lying. One rule of thumb I use is to look at what they ask me to do because of their experience. If it doesn’t feel like God but feels like their desires then I am extra skeptical.
I have, in the end, concluded that God does not leave conclusive or scientific evidence and thus, depending what someone means by “evidence” I don’t think its stupid to say there is no evidence.
There are however plenty of first hand accounts - not just of God but of Allah and other gods. that is a kind of evidence so you have a point.
I would say rather that none of them are scientific evidence.
And I would agree. But then again, "scientific evidence" rests on sets of assumptions which are completely unverifiable empirically (which is really a better term to use rather than scientific evidence, in my less-than-knowledgeable opinion). Empirical evidence is routinely assigned a "higher" level of authenticity by short sighted members of the physical sciences community. Of course, they do this VERY selectively, and wind up being dishonest in their argumentation when they do so (although I really do not believe it is deliberate). Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
One of the basic and simple illustrations is that of gravity. You drop and object and it falls. Over and over. Never deviates. You experiment with different size objects and the results puzzle you and seem counterintuitive. From that you derive theories of mass attraction, call it "gravity" and do experimentations on all types of entities, from physical objects here on earth to phenomena observed in telescopes out in the far reaches of space. The results all seem reasonably(!) uniform, so we say we have a "law" of gravity. What completely escapes the notice of many physical scientists is the whole gaggle of unverified, unverifiable and YES, PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions (that is the reason for the coyote-ping) this "law" rests on. The fact is that empiricism and empirical "proof" can only keep statistics, and those statistics are pretty crappy if you try to be honest about truly avoiding "faith" assumptions. All you are left with is a statement that "this appears to have happened a number of times." Anything beyond that requires assumptions of the uniformity of matter/energy and the uniformity of the behavior of the universe.
Don't get me wrong. I am not assaulting these assumptions (indeed I believe it is impossible to deny in practice these and other "footprints" the Creator has left in the creation, but that is another issue for another thread). What I AM saying is that the "faith" that physical scientists rest on in making these assumptions is no different in its essence from SJ Gould's plumber's reliance on God (if you have read Gould's little tract on the creationism debate. if not, you should). They gather data, and make a deductive reasoned "guess" that seems to fit the data. However, the uniformity of matter is, remains, and will forever remain UNverifiable by empirical testing. All a scientist can say is "this appears to have happened over and over, and if it quits happening...., BOY, that will be a surprise!" (see Greg Bahnsen's debate with Stein, it is on the internet).
The big difference is that the religious man accepts the possibility of an external validation of theory (the conscious and perceivable but non empirically verifiable experience of God), while the empiricist says that such experience is suspect simply because it is non empirically verifiable...... as he stands with both feet firmly in the air.
Again, the difference is NOT that one group accepts empirical verification of data while the other uses "faith." The big difference is that both groups use "faith" (although in different objects) and one groups openly admits it, while the other group is blissfully unaware they are singing hymns and reciting creeds while mocking the other group for doing so.