There is no evidence that will satisfy you. For many, the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for the existence of G-d. But you don't agree with that. It is really a way of looking at reality. Did everything, including humanity, get generated out of blind, unthinking natural processes? Or is the universe and humanity all the fulfillment of intention and will, the intention and will of G-d?
Moreover, who says that reality is that which can be described only by falsifiable claims? That seems to stretch Karl Popper's original notion that scientific theories be falsifiable (ie, testable) to absurdity. For example, is it falsifiable that saving someone's life is good? How can I prove to you that such an act is good and to be admired? There is something more fundamental and basic about the good of saving someone's life than the doctrine of falsifiability.
Belief in G-d is like that.
If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then there is no evidence that will satisfy you. See how absurd that sounds when I replace god with the flying spaghetti monster. And the fact you think just because something exists that is tantamount to proof of anything shows how little you understand about the sciences and what is considered evidence. Once again, I could use your ridiculous logic and claim the existence of the universe is sufficient proof for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
I don't think I have ever heard a more absurd proposition:
a)The Universe exists B) This is proof god exists
it's absurd as suggesting the following
a) Chimneys exist B) This is proof Santa Claus exists
And you seem to have anthropomorphised God, given him human characteristics like intention, will and thought. Why does there have to be a will or intention behind creation?
Also, I hope you aren't suggesting saving someones life is always a good deed. And concepts like saving someones life are abstract constructs. You really need to re-articulate such a question to make sense. Do you mean preventing someone from potentially dying? Essentially saving someones life could mean having to take someone else's life? You are talking about ethical issues and not scientific ones. Saving someones life can be both good or bad depending on the context. For example: If you tried to kill my friend, and I killed you to prevent that, although I may perceive what I did as a good thing, as I saved my friends life, your family and friends will have a different take on the matter.
So you can't prove if saving someones life is good or bad as it is based on subjective values and not objective ones. Unlike the laws of nature which are fixed and not affected by subjectivity, gravity doesn't stop working because you think it an immoral act.
Your posts makes very little sense to me, especially your comparison that believing in God is like your belief that saving someones life is good. Are you saying belief in God is a lot like like holding an opinion?
