What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[McCulloch]

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[William]

[Replying to post 200 by KenRU]

So the demand does not even consist of the expectation that the demand would be meet, thus - it IS an unreasonable assumption in that it it doesn't even assume the demand can be meet but has the pretext that it can.

[Replying to post 200 by KenRU]

The problem with this logic is that I am not the one with the pretext – the assertion. You have cause and effect backwards. This is akin to me telling you that I can prove unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. You wouldn’t believe such an assertion but you would be completely justified in asking for said proof. And you would, imo, have no fault in doing so.

That is faulty logic right there. You have attempted to say that GOD is akin to unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in that GOD has form which can be recognized as GOD. In that, it is clearly a conflation of radically different ideas.

No, it is not. It would only be dishonest if I were knowingly asking for proof I would not believe. That is different than not expecting that proof exists.

Yet this proof you assume exists and can be provided, you cannot say what it is, or how you would recognize it if you were presented it. So the demand is false in the first place. What kind of proof would you accept?

Even if you did have proof, why would you then need to believe? Is that to do with 'seeing is believing'? In which case it is the same as saying 'seeing is knowing'

What kind of thing(s) would you expect to see which would convince you that GOD exists?

Your surety (or mine for that matter) that these institutions are wrong and have no proof to back up their claims are not in question and are not the issue.

The issue is what would constitute evidence for me. And given the context that a vast majority of god concepts come from the holy books of the world’s most popular religions, I am completely within the bounds of justified reason to expect those religions to back up their claims.

No dishonesty required on my part.

What kinds of things are they claiming in relation to (their idea of) GODs existence to which you feel entitled to see the evidence?

Nice try. That logic fails. Everyone is wrong about something in their life. The only way to learn is to be open to hearing contrary points of views.

That is not being dishonest.

It certainly is if you have already made up your mind that the contrary points of view are not about 'hearing the hearsay' but about 'seeing the evidence'.

No, I do not. But I don’t have to. And that does not make it a dishonest question.

It is a matter of clarity. The dishonesty is in the demand for unspecified empirical evidence. What are YOU expecting in the way of such evidence? You cannot even say, yet you feel entitled to make the demand!

All the evidence you can hope to find through that process is that people believe in stories which they - unlike you - don't demand evidence the stories are true before believing in them.

Which is not what is being claimed by the theist. If that were the case from the outset, you might be right, and I probably would agree with you.

Things is...what then is being 'claimed by the theist' that you have the right to ask for evidence?

Is it not 'GOD Exists'? (as per the OP subject)

Just a casual surfing of this site would show you that many theists here claim that what you say is simply not true.

Please give examples.

You’re right, stories would not convince me, but that is not the claim the theist is making.

The claim theists are making is that GOD exists.

My particular claim is that GOD does exist, and that through a process of an aspect of GOD-consciousness interacting with the inert quantum material - through time-space - creates form, and then occupies that form for the experience.

In regards to that, you may demand evidence from me to support my claim and I may ask you to give me an example of what it is you would accept as evidence regarding the claim.
If you cannot provide any example, then your demand is null and void, because it is pointless fallacy.

I say that GOD exists, but my position is Panenthistic - and in that there is no holy book with questionable stories in them.

What evidence convinced you of this?

What do you mean by 'evidence'? If you are meaning empirical evidence, then none. If you are meaning subjective experience then I share about this at length and in detail in my members notes. << Click for link.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not the car exists. I may not want the car, but if it strikes my fancy, I may want to buy it.

GOD is not a car and you can't buy GOD...so...bad analogy.

For what it is worth, I was a practicing Catholic for 20+ years. So, I did own the car for a while.

You owned the Catholic idea of GOD for a while? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Catholic idea of GOD owned your belief system for a while?

Sure. If I am convinced, I am convinced. Science, evidence, proofs, etc do carry a lot of weight to me, but I’m sure the god portrayed in the holy books is capable of proving his existence to me.

How? What kind of evidence would you accept in order to believe that the biblical idea of GOD is true?

Would it? You are arguing for subjective evidence being enough for you. [However, you also seem to be arguing that the subjective evidence of others is not good enough.]

Depends on the subjective evidence, wouldn’t it?

In what way? Give an example.

Everyone is guilty of this.

Not me personally - in relation to the question of GOD. Organised religions ideas of GOD may not be to my liking, but I understand where they derive from and why they get stuck there. If a person belonging to any religion told me that they believed on account of their personal subjective experience then I would be interested in hearing more about that from them.
On the other hand, if they simply said they believed GOD existed because a holy book told them this was so, then it shifts from personal subjective experience between the individual and GOD into a supposed experience with a GOD through the medium of a book - and those interpreting the book.

In that - one is relying upon the hearsay of others regarding their supposed relationship with a GOD in order to follow after those others as if those others were representatives of the GOD - so effectively having a relationship with those others assuming that in doing so, one is having a relationship with the GOD.

I don’t believe other ppl’s ghost stories. But if I experienced one, I would believe but I would not expect others to believe me.

Nothing remarkable about this.

Yes - but how would your experiencing a ghost equate to experiencing GOD?

No, I would not. Why would I have to convince anyone of my personal experience? I have no expectation that they should believe me.

Give me an example of someone who expects you to believe them. They may well use the forum to expound their particular beliefs regarding GOD, but that is different.

In light of that, would you accept that this is okay with you and that no empirical evidence is therefore required?

Objective evidence would convince more ppl than subjective, sure. Not seeing this as any kind of great revelation though.

The revelation comes within the argument that demand for burden of proof in the form of empirical evidence is fallacious in regard to subjective experience which convinces the individual that GOD exists. Demanding such evidence as a way of convincing YOU that GOD exists - is superfluous.

So you are limiting the idea of GOD to how one idea of GOD is purported to being?
How is that even sensible?

Because no other information is available.

There is plenty of data available.

How is making something up sensible?

Because it is necessary. Par for the course. Obviously sorting wheat from chaff is part of that process. Obviously one has to take into account what cannot be made up - that which is already made.

I would say that these are some of the sources. Another source I find even more relevant is the nature of the universe, and in particular, what has and is happening on the planet.

Which sounds to me like a whole bunch of that subjective evidence you were discounting earlier

What subjective evidence did I discount earlier?

I am stuck in the parameters of the OP.

The subject is evidence of GOD. If you wish to limit that to one idea of GOD then those are your perimeters, not the OPs. There was no specification as to the type of GOD or evidence.

First off, the main religions that predominate society today shape our society in untold numerous ways. To deny this, or to not take part in that conversation if self-destructively foolish, imo. Secondly, one can only institute change by engaging in the conversation, not by abstaining.

It is my observation that organised religion is a political device. If one is unable or unwilling to see that, then one cannot appreciate the problem in its entirety and one will be just as likely to support the politics whilst disparaging the religiosity. Either way one is supporting the thing which predominantly shapes society and if one truly thinks change has to come, one is best to understand the whole nature of that beast, rather than the particular aspects of the beast one has a problem with.

They are currently being advanced and instituted today by religious institutions and ppl. Your point is rendered meaningless buy this fact.
Agreed, but they are still very much current – in the fact that they are still discussed, made into law, and practiced.

Roman rule over society did not disappear. You may want one without the other, but you will still end up with the same.

What is discussed, made into law and practiced, is politics. Either the politicians will have to change or they will need to be replaced with others who will reject all attempts at controlling society through such methods.

Good Luck with that. Personally I think the only way to make things better is to dump the Roman ways of disparity and create a System of Parity. Apparently I am outnumbered in relation to that. Most folk - theist and atheists - all sleep in the same bed on that one.

The context of the OP is something which - as I have mentioned a number of times - derives from another discussion regarding scientifically variable evidence to do with the existence of GOD.

Should I assume from this line that you have some scientific evidence that god exists?

No. You should read the thread to better understand why I made that comment.

I’ll give you an example, as generalizing is not helpful here. If I had a subjective experience, say, seeing the ghost of a dead relative telling me to go back to church, that might do it. There is no way to prove to others that it happened, and I would expect no one to believe me, but, nonetheless, I may very well be in church next Sunday.

Why? I myself would be inclined to ask the ghost exactly why it advises such a thing. And what church as well. However, in relation to the OP how would such a thing in itself constitute as evidence for you, that GOD does exist?

The reasons I do not believe what they believe have nothing to do with supposed miracles, and evidence which might be shown if they could repeat those supposed miracles would not convince me their beliefs are truthful.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Not if it has no merit. In this case it does.

If such a thing would convince you, then so be it.

Many fictitious books contain pearls of wisdom, as well as acts of bigotry and barbarisms

Perhaps many factual books contain elaborations too. Point being, books in and of themselves cannot constitute evidence that GOD exists. But MY point was that the pearls are still pearls even if they are found encased in pig manure.

That would vary depending upon which god we are talking about. The one purported to exist by the vast majority of ppl on earth? Asked an answered.

One not yet proposed to me? I don’t know. What characteristics does he have?

Rather than make this post any longer for repeating myself, here are some links to info answering your question.

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

It might be, or it may not be. It would depend on how the god showed himself to me.

Please give some examples then. What are some ways you would accept and some ways where you wouldn't?

It would depend. If I encountered a torrent of subjective evidence, sure. But surely you agree that the god of the bible could (if he existed) come down from heaven and provide a heaping dose of “objective� evidence to you, if he so choose to do so, correct?

Nope. That is incorrect.

I can think of no way in which any entity could land on this planet and - even doing amazing things - that would convince me that he is GOD.

I would be far more inclined to think of him as an advanced being using scientific know-how in order to attempt to convince me of his legitimacy.

Other than the fact that you can imagine this scenario, you have no reason to believe it is true, so, imo, it should be given as little weight as possible.

If the magic is not explained to me using scientific method and showing empirical evidence then I can indeed think it possible.

That is not to say that it would be the case. That is to say that no empirical evidence has been presented in order to show that it is NOT the case, which is the point.

Just because a scenario can be imagined, does not mean it should be given credence.

Not by itself, I agree. However, it should not be ignored as a possibility either.

Once again, just because you imagine a possibility, doesn’t mean it is a possibility. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proofs or evidence, imo.

Unless it is 'magic' - then no extraordinary proofs or evidence are required. Generally magicians will not say one way or the other. They imply what they do.

Which follows the spiral arm of thought that miracles/magic within the stories of the holy books should be able to be repeated by scientific process and replicated, just as surely as magicians illusion should be able to be explained in the same manner.

Simply, no. The miracles purported in such holy books are caused by a god. Scientists are not gods, though some may think themselves such, lol.

Therefore if I accept your reasoning - or for that matter - if YOU accept that reasoning, if a GOD were to do magical explainable things, scientists using science are not the ones who can verify, repeat or have much say on it anyway. Thus, the demand for burden of proof involving empirical evidence that GOD exists (let alone may do magic) is fallacious.

The effects or consequences of such miracles might be able to be measured, but the acts are performed by a god. Not people.

But how is one to tell? You are presuming the acts would be done by a GOD. Even that the consequences might be measurable, the measurements themselves cannot determine if it is an act of humans, GODs or ETs.

Imagination is/can be boundless. It does not follow that everything is possible.

If imagination is boundless - then yes, all things are possible.

We disagree. Your analogy fails. Magicians are ppl, and what they do can be studied.

And scientists are not studying them for the same reason scientists are not studying religious claims that GOD exists. Point being - the demand for empirical evidence is therefore a fallacious one.

The miracles in holy books are performed by gods, and are not bound by earthly laws. If I am to believe such a claim (that they exist) it is reasonable of me to expect them to behave as they are reported to do so – subverting the laws of nature.

Again - how could one tell just by observing? If a person was to claim to be able to part the seas, and did so, how are you to know that this is evidence that GOD exists?
What other explanations may be derived from the event using Occam's razor?

Irrelevant to whether the car exists or not. I may or may not want to buy it. The point of a salesman is to sell – even to those who may not want to buy it.

Again - you are thinking of GOD in terms of something which can be sold to you.

You are looking to find GOD in the car yard of the salesman. Your analogy is inept. It assumes that GOD can be found by those disinterested in finding GOD. If you cannot see GOD in nature, you are not interested in finding GOD at all.

This is not to say that you cannot appreciate nature and enjoy nature and spend you whole life in awe of nature. This simply means that you have no need to see nature as being something a GOD would create and exist within.

Perhaps you are, and you find the salesman is iffy at best in his techniques and perhaps also the cars on the lot are simply not what you are looking for anyway. So why persist, if this is the case?

Exactly. What you said is my point – I got to examine the evidence/offer.

No such credible evidence/offer exists in religion, imo, to believe any god exists.

Well I agree - apart from the pearls within holy books, the subjective experiences of those who share their stories which align with my own - religion is far too political in agenda for me to see GOD therein. I would like nothing better that to see that change, but *whatever*. It doesn't change my appreciation for GODs existence in relation to my own.

all the best
(sorry for the long delayed response)

Ditto.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 202 by William]



William,

In reading your member notes on first source consciousness and simulations, I'm overwhelmingly compelled to ask you two questions point blank.

Do you agree or disagree with my saying that, while you've hedged your bets by opening with "I think...," you haven't actually demonstrated any of your ideas are correct? For example, "Consciousness has always existed." I say you can neither know that or show it to be the case. Can you show I'm incorrect?

Do you allow that you could be completely wrong about your view of reality?


For the record, your writing is a fun read. Since you start by saying "This is what I think," I'm applying that to all the pages of what appear to be assertions, granting they're rather opinions you don't need or wish to keep qualifying as speculative deduction. If you'll acknowledge your inability to demonstrate these ideas are indeed the correct view of reality, and that you may in fact be entirely wrong on all of it, I'm content to let you roll the dice in peace like everyone else.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 202 by Inigo Montoya]



Moderator Comment

This appears to be off topic and may be better asked via PM or perhaps under the "Questions for a Specific user" subforum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[fredonly]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

You die, and you see him (or the other guy).

[William]

[Replying to post 204 by fredonly]

You die, and you see him (or the other guy).

What if the experience you have after your body dies is one in which your beliefs and thoughts dictate how that experience manifests? In other words, you shape the experience which is instantly manifested as real.

[Rufus21]

[Replying to post 204 by fredonly]

You die, and you see him (or the other guy).

What if the experience you have after your body dies is one in which your beliefs and thoughts dictate how that experience manifests? In other words, you shape the experience which is instantly manifested as real.

This is an excellent point. We have seen exactly this sort of thing happen with people's near-death experiences. Clearly the brain is creating the vision based on what it knows and what it expects to see. This kind of evidence would have to be rejected.

[Bust Nak]

The dishonesty is in the demand for unspecified empirical evidence.

Why would you think there is any dishonesty there? It is unspecified because any and all EMPIRICAL evidence is accepted.

What are YOU expecting in the way of such evidence? You cannot even say, yet you feel entitled to make the demand!

But we have said what we are expecting: we expect EMPIRICAL evidence, in other words scientific evidence. That specified what kind of evidence is acceptable. What's wrong with feeling entitled to make demands?

In regards to that, you may demand evidence from me to support my claim and I may ask you to give me an example of what it is you would accept as evidence regarding the claim.

An experiment the changes inert quantum material into specific from, that is statically differ from what can be expected if there is no consciousness controlling it.

If you cannot provide any example, then your demand is null and void, because it is pointless fallacy.

Why on Earth would you think that? It is not making any sense. This is the basis of your entire contribution to this topic. You need to explain this in detail. What exactly is problem with demanding empirical evidence, without being exact on the detail of what is acceptable? What is exactly is wrong with issuing challenges that you expect your opponent to fail on?

[William]

[Replying to post 207 by Bust Nak]

What exactly is problem with demanding empirical evidence, without being exact on the detail of what is acceptable? What is exactly is wrong with issuing challenges that you expect your opponent to fail on?

The question is "What Constitutes Evidence That GOD Does Exist."

So you tell me then. Answer you own questions above in relation to that.

[Bust Nak]

The question is "What Constitutes Evidence That GOD Does Exist."

So you tell me then. Answer you own questions above in relation to that.

Okay, there is no problem with demanding empirical evidence, without being exact on the detail of what is acceptable. There is nothing wrong with issuing challenges that you expect your opponent to fail on.

I've answered my own questions in relation to the topic "What Constitutes Evidence That GOD Does Exist." Now what? It didn't got me any closer in figuring out why that seemed to be a sticking point for you.

[William]

[Replying to post 209 by Bust Nak]

There is nothing wrong with issuing challenges that you expect your opponent to fail on

.

Perhaps the key to this in relation to the OP is for you to answer the question;
(in relation to the OP - assuming the evidence demanded is empirical)
Q: What challenges do you expect the opponent to fail on?

You haven't said, so it is impossible to know until you can say. Do you have some examples?