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?

[Bust Nak]

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?

There is no need to assume that. I stated so. I expect the opponent to fail on providing any empirical evidence for God.

You haven't said, so it is impossible to know until you can say.

The record will show that the question was answered by me as early as post#33. It was literally my first post to this thread. More to the point, it was right there in the post you were replying to, and I quote "demanding empirical evidence." Seems rather odd for you to lose track of the context in the space of two consecutive sentences.

Do you have some examples?

The record would also show that I gave you an example in post#149.

[William]

[Replying to post 211 by Bust Nak]

I expect the opponent to fail on providing any empirical evidence for God.

This is an obvious expectation since science isn't presently a process which is able to be used for such a purpose.

This begs the question;

Q: Why demand empirical evidence for Gods existence when it is already known that none can be given?

Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group in guessing the written content of an envelope, in a lab environment.

The test is done, and Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group is therefore evidence that the Christian GOD exists?

What are your reasons for thinking this would be the case?

What then if;

The test is done, and Christians do no better than the control group?

Is this therefore evidence that the Christian GOD does not exist?

[Bust Nak]

This is an obvious expectation since science isn't presently a process which is able to be used for such a purpose.

This begs the question;

Q: Why demand empirical evidence for Gods existence when it is already known that none can be given?

Because I enjoy watching theists sweat when they can't quite bring themselves to state clearly, "there is no empirical evidence for any gods." I also like to hear theists state clearly "there is no empirical evidence for any gods." Finally, I want to be correct, and if there is empirical evidence for God then I want to know to convert. It's a win-win-win situation.

The test is done, and Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group is therefore evidence that the Christian GOD exists?

Yes.

What are your reasons for thinking this would be the case?

God is giving Christians insight to do better.

What then if;

The test is done, and Christians do no better than the control group?

Then the null hypothesis holds. There is no relation between being Christian and doing well in that test.

Is this therefore evidence that the Christian GOD does not exist?

No.

[William]

[Replying to post 213 by Bust Nak]

Finally, I want to be correct, and if there is empirical evidence for God then I want to know to convert. It's a win-win-win situation.

So you are looking to convert if you have the empirical evidence but understand that presently science is not a process which can deliver?

The test is done, and Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group is therefore evidence that the Christian GOD exists?

Yes.

So would this allow you to convert?

What are your reasons for thinking this would be the case?

God is giving Christians insight to do better.

So - guessing the written content of an envelope is evidence of having better insight?

In your relationship with Christians have you ever come to the conclusion that generically they have 'better insight'? I ask because I am wondering weather this has any bearing on the need to test further.

Is it your wish to be able to guess the contents of sealed envelopes and such and would you convert if it meant you could acquire this ability?

Do you think that if even half the worlds population of Christians could do this, that the world we live in would be exactly the same as it currently is, or very much different?

Is this therefore evidence that the Christian GOD does not exist?

No.

Then what is the point in demanding evidence for something which the process of science presently cannot test?

I am under the impression that Christian dogma has it that one is not to put their GOD to the test.

Was this factored into the idea of the test regarding guessing the contents of sealed envelopes?
Because if it wasn't, then how can it be said that there should be a reasonable expectation that Christians would do better than others at the test, therefore showing that it is evidence that their GOD exists?

The expectation is faulty based upon the knowledge that GOD is not to be tested.

It assumes that Christians would subscribe to the test in order for those doing the testing to then be able to have evidence and even perhaps convert, when those they are testing did not convert through testing the GOD, but through having faith in the GOD.

Surely good scientific process has to include all the variables before it can be regarded as something which can be used to determine what 'constitutes evidence that GOD exists'?

This 'example of evidence' has not taken into account those factors and so what we are left with is a kind of strawman test? Or something long those lines? It is set up to produce failure, but in doing so it has had to ignore certain variables.

All in all, the Christian/Abrahamic GOD will not be tested, and this cannot be said to be evidence that the Christian/Abrahamic GOD therefore does not exist.

[Bust Nak]

So you are looking to convert if you have the empirical evidence but understand that presently science is not a process which can deliver?

Correct.

So would this allow you to convert?

yes, as would any other empirical evidence. I am not one of those who stand in defiance of an actual god.

So - guessing the written content of an envelope is evidence of having better insight?

No, of course guessing the content is not evidence. The whole point of the experiment is to show if that there is insight beyond guessing.

In your relationship with Christians have you ever come to the conclusion that generically they have 'better insight'?

Hell no. But that's besides the point, my personal experience is not empirical data.

I ask because I am wondering weather this has any bearing on the need to test further.

Is it your wish to be able to guess the contents of sealed envelopes and such and would you convert if it meant you could acquire this ability?

Having that ability would be nice, but my actual wish, as I stated before, is to be correct.

Do you think that if even half the worlds population of Christians could do this, that the world we live in would be exactly the same as it currently is, or very much different?

It would be completely different.

Then what is the point in demanding evidence for something which the process of science presently cannot test?

That's where my other two wins of my win-win-win situation comes in.

I am under the impression that Christian dogma has it that one is not to put their GOD to the test.

Was this factored into the idea of the test regarding guessing the contents of sealed envelopes?

No.

Because if it wasn't, then how can it be said that there should be a reasonable expectation that Christians would do better than others at the test, therefore showing that it is evidence that their GOD exists?

Because if they do indeed do better than others at the test, it would be evidence that their GOD exists. You do understand the huge difference between the failing in empirically demonstrate something, and succeeding in empirically demonstrate the opposite, right?

The expectation is faulty based upon the knowledge that GOD is not to be tested.

The expectation is for them to fail to do any better.

It assumes that Christians would subscribe to the test in order for those doing the testing to then be able to have evidence and even perhaps convert, when those they are testing did not convert through testing the GOD, but through having faith in the GOD.

Not my problem if they aren't willing to do the test. The same applies to God too, he might not be willing to participate in the test even if he exists. I don't care: neither of this change the fact that the test as stated is capable of testing for the existence of God.

Surely good scientific process has to include all the variables before it can be regarded as something which can be used to determine what 'constitutes evidence that GOD exists'?

It has to include all the relevant variable. The variable you highlight and the one I volunteer above are both irrelevant.

This 'example of evidence' has not taken into account those factors and so what we are left with is a kind of strawman test? Or something long those lines? It is set up to produce failure, but in doing so it has had to ignore certain variables.

All in all, the Christian/Abrahamic GOD will not be tested, and this cannot be said to be evidence that the Christian/Abrahamic GOD therefore does not exist.

Right, and no one has pretended otherwise. I have not said anything about using the experiment as evidence that God does not exist. I answered with a clear "no" when you asked me if failure would count as evidence that the God does not exist.

Let me try an analogy: Lets say my brother claims to be able to clear 2 meter in a high jump. I set up the bar at 2 meter and ask him to prove it. He refuses and tells me, "my refusal does not prove that I cannot clear 2 meter." He is 100% correct. I have not succeed in proving that he can't clear 2 meters, all I've done is fail to prove that he can clear 2 meter. That does not change the fact that a bar at 2 meter can test his claim. That does not change the fact that a successful jump would be empirical evidence for his claim. Is that clear?

[William]

[Replying to post 215 by Bust Nak]

No, of course guessing the content is not evidence. The whole point of the experiment is to show if that there is insight beyond guessing.

Well that was the word you used in post #149.

Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group in guessing the written content of an envelope, in a lab environment.

Hell no. But that's besides the point, my personal experience is not empirical data.

Strictly speaking it is, but not in relation to others. Empirical is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

How would you expect the insight to work if you were able to know what was in a sealed container?

Having that ability would be nice, but my actual wish, as I stated before, is to be correct.

What are you saying here? That one can have insight into what is in a sealed container but one might not be correct?

In what way would having the ability be 'nice'? How would that change things for you in relation to others who do not have the insight?

Do you know of anyone who has been tested this way and shown to be able to do this?

I am under the impression that Christian dogma has it that one is not to put their GOD to the test.

Was this factored into the idea of the test regarding guessing the contents of sealed envelopes?

No.

Not my problem if they aren't willing to do the test.

But you admit that you did not take into consideration that factor when designing your test. If you had done so, you would know it was a pointless test because you would not have any Christians lining up to take the test on the grounds that they would not be willing to go against their GODs will.

The same applies to God too, he might not be willing to participate in the test even if he exists. I don't care: neither of this change the fact that the test as stated is capable of testing for the existence of God.

Well the test is pointless for that. It may be theoretically capable of testing for the existence of the Christian GOD, but without cooperation, it remains theory.

It has to include all the relevant variable. The variable you highlight and the one I volunteer above are both irrelevant.

And the test idea is irrelevant for that. The test parameters do not in themselves constitute evidence that GOD does - or for that matter - does not exist.

You believe it is an example of something which can be used to determine one way or another, but you have no one to test it on.

Right, and no one has pretended otherwise. I have not said anything about using the experiment as evidence that God does not exist. I answered with a clear "no" when you asked me if failure would count as evidence that the God does not exist.

Yes - I noted that was the case.

So, if for example you decided that you would become the one to try and gain insight into what was in a sealed container by asking for GODs assistance, how would you go about doing this?

Let me try an analogy: Lets say my brother claims to be able to clear 2 meter in a high jump. I set up the bar at 2 meter and ask him to prove it. He refuses and tells me, "my refusal does not prove that I cannot clear 2 meter." He is 100% correct. I have not succeed in proving that he can't clear 2 meters, all I've done is fail to prove that he can clear 2 meter. That does not change the fact that a bar at 2 meter can test his claim. That does not change the fact that a successful jump would be empirical evidence for his claim. Is that clear?

Yes - I understand.

However, that is a different situation because your brother isn't saying that GOD gave him the ability to jump that high, and that GOD also forbids being tested.

For that matter, no Christians I am aware of are claiming that they have the ability to know what is inside sealed containers.

So all in all - as my point was in my last post, your requirement for empirical evidence in relation to this test you have devised, is ill thought out and needs to be taken back to the drawing board.

Because your assumption that it should be a perfect device in which to test whether the Christian/ Abrahamic GOD exists has been shown to be faulty due to your not considering all the variables.

[Danmark]

However, that is a different situation because your brother isn't saying that GOD gave him the ability to jump that high, and that GOD also forbids being tested.

For that matter, no Christians I am aware of are claiming that they have the ability to know what is inside sealed containers.

No, what Christians claim is that they know God exists and THEY know his will. This is very much like claiming to know what is inside a sealed container...
... a container the very existence of which is in much doubt.

[Bust Nak]

Well that was the word you used in post #149.

Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group in guessing the written content of an envelope, in a lab environment.

Right, and if there is statically significant difference, we can conclude that it goes beyond guessing.

Strictly speaking it is, but not in relation to others. Empirical is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Then someone seeing a ghost would count as "empirical" evidence. Please don't abuse the English language like that.

How would you expect the insight to work if you were able to know what was in a sealed container?

Don't know, we can do more experiments. Try different containers, try different types of content.

What are you saying here? That one can have insight into what is in a sealed container but one might not be correct?

No, I meant if X is true, then I want to know that X is true, for all X.

In what way would having the ability be 'nice'? How would that change things for you in relation to others who do not have the insight?

I can entertain others with party tricks, for example.

Do you know of anyone who has been tested this way and shown to be able to do this?

Do magic stage shows count? I am guessing no, in which case, I do not.

But you admit that you did not take into consideration that factor when designing your test. If you had done so, you would know it was a pointless test because you would not have any Christians lining up to take the test on the grounds that they would not be willing to go against their GODs will.

But that does not change the fact that this experiment can demonstrate God's existence, which was the question in the OP? Not my problem if Christian won't try it. Not my problem if God won't part take.

Well the test is pointless for that. It may be theoretically capable of testing for the existence of the Christian GOD, but without cooperation, it remains theory.

Thank you for affirming the bit in bold - I have answered the OP.

And the test idea is irrelevant for that. The test parameters do not in themselves constitute evidence that GOD does - or for that matter - does not exist.

But you just affirmed that it was theoretically capable of testing for the existence of the Christian GOD. I wasn't asked to provide something that DOES constitute evidence that God exists, that's your job. Instead I was asked to provide something that WOULD constitute evidence that God exists. I delivered.

You believe it is an example of something which can be used to determine one way or another, but you have no one to test it on.

Incorrect. I have made it very explicit that I believe no such thing, I have on multiple occasion stated that it cannot determine God's non-existence. You have presented a strawman. I believe it can be used to determine one way but not the another.

Yes - I noted that was the case.

And yet, you managed to accuse me of believing my experiment can be used to "determine one way or another." Why? Was it just a slip of the tongue/keyboard?

So, if for example you decided that you would become the one to try and gain insight into what was in a sealed container by asking for GODs assistance, how would you go about doing this?

Find some generic Christian prayer online, or maybe just the Lord's prayer and say it in my head before guessing the content?

Yes - I understand.

However, that is a different situation because your brother isn't saying that GOD gave him the ability to jump that high, and that GOD also forbids being tested.

Right, what of it? How does that change the fact that the test if successful, would be empirical evidence of the claim in question?

For that matter, no Christians I am aware of are claiming that they have the ability to know what is inside sealed containers.

So all in all - as my point was in my last post, your requirement for empirical evidence in relation to this test you have devised, is ill thought out and needs to be taken back to the drawing board.

Because your assumption that it should be a perfect device in which to test whether the Christian/ Abrahamic GOD exists has been shown to be faulty due to your not considering all the variables.

Look back at my analogy, does my brother's refusal to jump change the fact that, the test if successful would be empirical evidence that he can clear 2 meter? If not then considered your challenge answered.

[William]

[Replying to post 218 by Bust Nak]

Then someone seeing a ghost would count as "empirical" evidence.

Subjectively speaking, yes. Good for the individual experiencing such, but no good for the process of science.

Don't know, we can do more experiments. Try different containers, try different types of content.

So this in itself moves from having evidence that GOD exists into figuring out how GOD does it?

No, I meant if X is true, then I want to know that X is true, for all X.

If X = God Exists, your statement would read "No, I meant if God Exists is true, then I want to know that God Exists is true, for all God Exists."

I can entertain others with party tricks, for example.

So you have this ability from GOD and want to use it to entertain people at parties.

Do magic stage shows count? I am guessing no, in which case, I do not.

Nor do I. But we both agree that this in itself does not signify that GOD does not exist.

But that does not change the fact that this experiment can demonstrate God's existence, which was the question in the OP? Not my problem if Christian won't try it. Not my problem if God won't part take.

The question in the OP has never been clarified by the author. Assuming the author meant 'evidence which can be scientifically varied, since neither Christians or GOD seem interested in your example, your example cannot be used to demonstate GODs existence.

Which is not what the OP was asking anyway. It was asking for "What would constitute [scientific?] evidence that God does exist?" not "How would one go about testing and acquiring [scientific?] evidence that GOD exists?" of which your example fails anyway, on account of the missing variables I have already mentioned.

Thank you for affirming the bit in bold - I have answered the OP.

Oh I see - my bad. The OP asked for what would constitute a theoretic test for evidence that God does exist. Oh no...wait!

The next paragraph of your post only goes on arguing semantics in relation to what the OP author was actually meaning. He never got back with any clarification on that, so the thread is a vortex for circular argument, and boring for that.

I will stick with my original answer to the OP question.

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Good question.

Specify what is meant by 'GOD' and then ask the question.

The answers will be focused upon the particular ideas of what GOD is and so will vary.

Also specify what type of evidence one is asking for. Empirical [Objectively able to be seen as factual, actual, real, verifiable, first-hand;] or other [subjectively experienced, seen in the nature of creation...]?

My understanding of 'what GOD is' is that IT is a conscious self aware intelligent creative entity which (in relation to our reality) permeates the whole universe and divests aspects of its conscious self into forms within the universe and uses those forms to creator other forms in which to divest more aspects of its consciousness into.

Essentially that makes all of us humans aspects of GOD consciousness.

So with the above definition, ask your question;

Q: "What would constitute evidence that the above idea of what GOD is, does exist?"

There is no more I need to contribute to this thread.

Cheers

W

[Danmark]

The question in the OP has never been clarified by the author. Assuming the author meant 'evidence which can be scientifically varied [sic], since neither Christians or GOD seem interested in your example, your example cannot be used to demonstate [sic]GODs existence.
....
There is no more I need to contribute to this thread.

Wrong. The OP was very clear. It merely asks "What would constitute evidence that God does exist?" You haven't given any meaningful answer, no 'contribution' at all. Apparently thru all this you have not been able to suggest anything that would constitute such evidence, scientific or otherwise.

There may in fact be some 'god' of some sort, just as there may be some unnamed 'force' yet to be discovered, but most natural phenomena that were previously attributed to a 'god' now have natural explanations that need no god to account for them.

And the Judeo Christian 'God' is hopelessly inadequate to explain anything of nature considering the claim 'He' created the world in six days with a confusing and contradictory timeline; declared it 'good,' then declared it corrupt and destroyed it.
What evidence IS there that this very human like God of the Bible exists?