If you had strong evidence of God, but not irrefutable proof, would you believe or ignore it?

  • I would believe in the deity for which there was strong evidence
    83% (10)79% (11)81% (21)Vote
  • I would still deny the deity for which there was strong evidence
    17% (2)21% (3)19% (5)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
5|12

Most Helpful Girl

  • I believe in God and have seen his power. I was paralyzed and told I would never walked again. I prayed and God heard my prayers and helped me learn to walk despite having severed my nerves to my legs. God is an awesome God. 🙏🏻🙌🏻

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

What Girls Said 4

  • I vote for A. If I don't find anything to proof, I wouldn't believe in God. But fortunately I find it and it's make me believe in Him more and more. Yeay! <3

    0|0
    0|0
  • I need no proof or "evidence" I believe in God already.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I already believe in god... so

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm spiritual, but I do not believe in god

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 11

  • Strong, STRONG evidence would cause me to PURSUE the avenue FURTHER, but no, it would not make me believe right off the bat.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I'd believe but still have a little room for doubt.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I dont believe in a god, i grew up Catholic, but its pretty well vanished from my life. The only parts that remain are the other people in my life that believe in it.

    I wouldny believe even if there was strong evidence towards it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Well exactly the thing I already believe in him and I don't require concrete proof even though there is proof all around us.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't believe anyone can give me a strong evidence that god exists, so no.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's a moot point. It will never matter IF God exists because it IS a man made delusion hatched by desert dwelling primitives who were awestruck by a volcano they couldn't comprehend as merely the process of nature. We know better now and we should act like it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • That actually isn't a reason why it wouldn't matter if God existed.

      If God exists then God isn't a delusion.
      If God isn't a delusion then your whole basis falls apart.
      If your whole basis falls apart then something is wrong with your logic.

      Turns out it's arguing the consequent. ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html )

    • Show All
    • Affirming the consequent. You're an emotional thinker.

    • Make declarative statements all you like. It changes nothing about the nature of reality.

  • Which god?

    0|1
    0|0
    • Any.

    • My response would be the entire pantheon of Germanic/Norse gods.
      I follow the spiritual path of my white ancestors.

  • Strong evidence should be strong, not just application of the sharpshooter fallacy. I voted B).

    0|0
    0|0
    • Not sure how that would apply to philosophical problems.

  • I think the evidence is compelling and I do believe. There IS room for science but G0d is behind it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • In what form would this strong evidence be?
    "God was her" carved into a Wendy's bathroom stall?

    0|0
    0|0
    • Since you asked I'll say that there was an event which allows contact with this being by anyone and that people who opt to contact this being, regardless of their beliefs, have life changes which are dramatic, tangible, and verifiable.

      I am not saying they are "miracles" but at the same time they are definitely not scientifically explainable and do not necessarily follow the natural order a good amount of time. The base is that these events are directly contingent upon contacting (however that is done) this being and all cases have that in common and the being does not change so the source is not malleable.

      Strong evidence but not absolute proof.

Loading...