'There is no evidence for God'

- SPECIAL THANKS

As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:

Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf

- CONNECT

SOCIAL LINKS:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

- CONTACT

Or send me something:

Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND

------------------------------------------

[EatHoneyBeeHappy]

It's pretty obvious people mean that a lot of terrible little anecdotes and unfalsifiable claims don't add up to one good piece of evidence.

[adamwhite]

I think most people mean “no compelling evidence” when they say “no evidence”. Seems like delving into semantics when we say, “well there is bad, unconvincing evidence for a god, but it IS evidence!”

[Danny]

Why doesn't this "omnipotent" god character just come down and settle this once and for all?

[Maey]

The thing that I find interesting when people say things like this is clear evidence of God, is why isn't that clear evidence of Zeus?? or Odin, or Ra, or quetzalcoatl, or Siva?? The list is endless. Why does the Christian god get all the credit??

[davebowman]

Alex is a better apologist for Christianity than Christian apologists

[finleymorris]

I think our standards of evidence and standards of a successful argument should be very high for a claim such as the existence of a higher power, even more so a god of a specific religion

[GospodinStanoje]

Wow. I rarely hear something new on this topic. This is... amazing. I don't remember the last time I've been moved by a video. I haven't thought of cumulative arguments, ever. Thank you for your thinking and sharing these thoughts with us.

Also you have very precisely described how people, Christians at least, think about the evidence/faith.

I really don't say this lightly, but after watching you throughout the years, I genuinely think you are *the* sharpest mind I've ever heard speak.

You don't have any aggression/resentment within yourself and you have honed the art of disagreeing with anybody and healthily pushing on those little points, without making it a fight or debate, but keeping the conversation within the realm of a true discussion imbued with mutual respect. That is truly remarkable.

Thank you. Greetings from Serbia.

[mkano]

I like your podcasts Alex, but i gotta say, i like your appearances at other channels more. Everyone can do a podcast where they are the ones guiding the conversation but you have a rare capability of anwsering questions insightfully which is very satisfying.

[misterocain]

Should we confuse "arguments for" with "evidence"? Also how do we gauge when "evidence" has exceeded 50?

[dillanklapp]

I think what people really mean when they say there is no evidence for God, is that there is no empirical evidence.

The only “evidence” for God I’ve ever been exposed to are philosophical arguments, and I find these to be a particularly weak form of evidence.

[marcvanleeuwen]

Sorry Alex, even without listening further than 1:20, I can say that arguments do not alter the probability that some proposition is true. Arguments may convince you that some (known) evidence increases the likelihood you ascribe to a proposition, but all that the argument does is elucidate the connection; even then, the change of likelihood is caused only by the evidence, not by the argument.

[stueyapstuey]

The problem with this framing of 'a cumulative case' is that it is essentially claiming you are able to argue a thing into existence. You can build successive notions that lower the probability of a thing existing or, not, and that probability can eventually be convincing to you. This does not - in any way - change the ontological status of the thing itself. Changing your own frame of reference as to 'what constitutes evidence' is not the same as arriving at definitive proof!

[Leszek.Rzepecki]

Sorry, but speaking as a scientist, right from the first words, I don't think Alex is using the word "evidence" in a standard way. An argument, from a scientific perspective, is emphatically *NOT* evidence! Maybe a philosopher might consider an argument sufficiently compelling to believe it, or accept it as provisionally true, but it's not evidence. Evidence is something tangible, observable by the senses whether aided by instruments or not, and is reproducible under identical circumstances. There's nothing remotely like that for the supernatural in general, let alone any of the thousands of anecdotal deities! Philosophers need to be kept on a shorter leash!.

[barnesen]

One has to ask why we keep asking about God. Even if a God exists, he's made it quite apparent that he is not interested in us.

[tjblues]

Putting together bad evidence results in... bad evidence. Just like in 0x0=0.

[tylermaddux]

This is silly.
There’s no GOOD evidence is what people mean when they say that. It’s like we are just watering down the conversation with semantics here.

[triumphTLG]

Interesting that my favorite bit of conversation with Cameron is one where he barely says anything. He must have learned you can't be bad faith if you don't speak

[zverh]

It depends on how you define the word "evidence". It is usually defined as "good reasons" to believe, but this is vague. What counts as "good", some go a step further and qualify it further with _enough_ and make it "good enough". But even this is vague and subjective. What counts as good enough, and who gets to decide how good is good enough? It all boils down to the vagueness of language.

[cathyharrop]

Isn't 'Bad Evidence" really just not 'Evidence'?

[dongeonmaster]

I feel argument and evidence are being conflated here.