What would be the best evidence for the existence of god is the question I asked on Quora and got a lot of interesting atheists, some religious grumpy, and even funny answers. So, what would be the best evidence for the existence of god for believers and non-believers?
Here is one of the best answers:
The best evidence for the existence of god, acceptable to all, theists and atheists
“We’re still waiting for evidence. There is none that meet an acceptable standard for evidence.
I insist on empirical evidence that is credible, objective, and verifiable.
1. Evidence: A body of facts that are positively indicative of or exclusive concordant with one particular position over any other available.
2. Empirical: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
3. Indicative: Serving as a sign or indication of something.
4. Exclusive: Restricted or limited to.
5. Concordant: In agreement, consistent.
*
Credible: Means reliable, believable. It comes from a reliable source. There is no obvious reason to doubt its authenticity.
A child who is convinced there is a monster under the bed is not credible. A strong chain of circumstantial evidence is usually credible. Indeed, recent studies suggest strong circumstantial evidence may be more credible than eyewitness testimony.
If what is presented as “evidence” lacks credibility, one can ignore it. All quotations from the sacred text of any religion, for example, lack credibility as hearsay to those not a member of that religion.
*
Objective: Means that the evidence can be observed in a scientific sense* by anyone. This excludes, for example, subjective personal experience with a supernatural being.
If someone tells me they have an intense, personal relationship with their god, I am perfectly willing to accept that they believe that. But since I have no way of experiencing their subjective, personal experience, I am unwilling to accept their testimony about it as objective evidence. It is subjective.
If a god is active in the physical world, I, and anyone else who is interested, must be able to observe, in a scientific sense, physical evidence of this god’s activity. If that can’t be done, the “evidence” is not objective.
*
Verifiable: Means at the simplest level that whatever is offered as evidence can also be found by anyone else using the same conditions. The reason that assertions about science must undergo peer review is this: If others cannot get the same result using exactly the same method, then the truth of the assertion is not verified.
* Observed in a scientific sense means detected in any of the many ways in which scientists detect phenomena. One of the silliest conceits among the already silly practitioners of apologetics is to insist “observe” means that atheists (and possibly scientists, apologists have trouble making the distinction) will only believe that which they can see with their own eyes.
Empirical evidence can’t prove “everything”. But it can prove everything that matters, under the definitions empiricists use. The definition derives from the notion that if it can’t be detected empirically then it doesn’t matter: it cannot physically affect you. And conversely, if it does affect you (even in some highly abstract sense) then by definition that’s something we can measure empirically.
(Credit to Barry Hampe for the explanation)”
Read the presentation of my new Book Series with the first valid evidence in history that god does NOT exist because that is not possible: https://god-doesntexist.com/god-does-not-exist-series/
June 2026 Update
That evidence — structured, evidential, and ontologically grounded — is documented and explained in the [comprehensive atheist FAQ presenting the first valid evidence in history].
Why are religious claims not evidence for the existence of god?
I asked ChatGPT to compare usual religious claims with the above criteria for valid evidence for the existence of god.
ChatGPT: “Let’s break this down step by step, comparing why religious claims for the existence of God do not meet these criteria:
1. Evidence
Definition: A body of facts positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with one particular position over any other available.
Religious Claims: Religious texts and personal testimonies are often presented as evidence for the existence of God, but these do not constitute factual, universally accepted evidence. They rely on interpretation rather than objective validation.
Why It Fails: Proof and evidence for the existence of God must unequivocally support one specific claim, yet religious arguments often overlap with each other or with natural explanations, failing to establish exclusivity.
2. Empirical
Definition: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Religious Claims: Arguments such as the complexity of life or the universe are frequently cited as empirical evidence for the existence of God, but these arguments lack systematic observation and measurable data.
Why It Fails: Claims for God’s existence are often theoretical or anecdotal, falling short of the standard of empirical evidence. For example, observable data support naturalistic explanations, like evolution, whereas religious explanations are not.
3. Indicative
Definition: Serving as a sign or indication of something.
Religious Claims: Miracles or supposed divine interventions are often used to answer the question, “Is there evidence for the existence of God?”
Why It Fails: Events labeled as miracles often have natural explanations or lack sufficient documentation. They fail to consistently serve as reliable indicators of a deity’s activity in the world.
4. Exclusive
Definition: Restricted or limited to.
Religious Claims: Arguments like “the universe requires a creator” are often presented as proof and evidence for the existence of God, but these claims apply equally to all gods or supernatural entities proposed by different religions.
Why It Fails: For evidence to support the existence of a specific god, it must exclude all other possibilities, including naturalistic ones. Religious claims lack this exclusivity.
5. Concordant
Definition: In agreement, consistent.
Religious Claims: Religious explanations for the universe or life often conflict with scientific evidence. For example, creationism contradicts evolutionary biology and the fossil record.
Why It Fails: Concordant evidence for the existence of God would require consistency with known scientific facts, which religious claims often lack.
6. Credible
Definition: Reliable and believable; coming from a trustworthy source with no reason to doubt its authenticity.
Religious Claims: Sacred texts are the most common source of evidence for the existence of God, but these texts were written by humans with unverifiable motives.
Why It Fails: Sacred texts lack credibility because they are unverifiable and often conflict with each other and with empirical findings. For non-believers, these texts hold no more credibility than the sacred writings of other religions.
7. Objective
Definition: Evidence that can be observed in a scientific sense by anyone, excluding subjective personal experiences.
Religious Claims: Personal revelations or divine encounters are often cited when asked, “Is there evidence for the existence of God?”
Why It Fails: Subjective experiences cannot be observed, replicated, or tested by others. Objective empirical evidence for the existence of God would need to be observable by anyone under consistent conditions, which is not the case for these claims.
8. Verifiable
Definition: Evidence that can be consistently observed by anyone using the same methods and conditions.
Religious Claims: Arguments for miracles, prayer efficacy, or divine intervention often fail rigorous verification.
Why It Fails: For evidence to be verifiable, it must yield the same results under identical conditions. No proof and evidence for the existence of God has passed this test, as such claims are inconsistent and non-reproducible.
Conclusion
Religious claims fail to meet the criteria for credible, objective, and verifiable evidence for the existence of God. They rely on faith, tradition, and subjective experience rather than observable, empirical data. While questions like “Is there evidence for the existence of God?” are worth exploring, empirical methods and verifiable data remain the most reliable paths to understanding reality.
You can read more about the history of the evidence for god existence at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God.
The best evidence for the existence of god is god himself
Here is my answer to John Holder:
“I agree, simple, fair, and honest.
The only valid evidence for god would be he himself, live and present. No god, no evidence.
After a long history of waiting, guessing, and assuming, I discovered the first valid evidence that god does not exist because that is not possible.
It is logical, but it meets all your criteria. Logical does not exclude empirical because it is a concrete experience, insight, and realization.”
1. Evidence: It is valid evidence and proves that god does not exist because that is not possible.
2. Empirical: It is empirical despite being logical. It offers concrete mental logical experience and realization of Truth. 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical claim, logical and empirical experience, and realization.
3. Indicative: It is pointing to the Truth that god does not exist.
4. Exclusive: It is valid for all gods and excludes them all with one swing.
5. Concordant: It is consistent and in agreement with itself.
6. Credible: It comes from the Truth, Reason, and logic.
7. Objective: Anyone can understand it, check, and confirm it.
8. Verifiable: Everybody can come to the same logical conclusion following the same steps.
My proof meets all the conditions for a valid proof of the non-existence of god.
Fantastic future after the end of the Earth’s blockade
Read more about the work of the new Cosmic Administration, the end of all religions, and the awesome future of Earth after the end of the planetary blockade in my new Book Series:
“It’s finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History”
After millennia of speculation, assumptions, and false beliefs, we now have irrefutable evidence: God Does NOT Exist because that is impossible.
The Biggest SECRET in Human History is Finally REVEALED: The truth will liberate atheists from religious and right-wing hatred, violence, and terror. It will help believers sober up, escape their religious delusions, and live in common sense.
You deserve to KNOW.
Read Related Articles:
Atheist vs Theist Debate Tactics: Biblical Quote Bombardments on Medium
https://god-doesntexist.com/atheist-vs-theist-debate-tactics-biblical-quote-bombardments-on-medium/
Apologetics and the Defense of Evil Yahweh’s Lies and Violence
https://god-doesntexist.com/apologetics-and-the-defense-of-evil-yahwehs-lies-and-violence/
