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]

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

That's the point isn't it? Science.

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

Yes.

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."

You are reading it wrong. If X = God exists then it would read "No, I meant if God Exists is true, then I want to know that God Exists is true."

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

Yes. Is that a problem for you?

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

Granted.

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.

But it can should Christians and God choose to participate. Not my problem if they don't.

Which is not what the OP was asking anyway. It was asking for "What would constitute [scientific?] evidence that God does exist?"

Empirical evidence. Why is this such a sticking point for you? If someone asks me, "what food would you pick if you are literally starving to death," I would answer, "just food, any would do" I am not going limit myself to "lobsters." If my brother jumped over a 2.15m bar, I am not going to tell him "No, that won't do, I said 2m bar!"

not "How would one go about testing and acquiring [scientific?] evidence that GOD exists?"

You asked for a specific example. How is that not the same thing as asking how one would go about testing testing and acquiring [scientific?] evidence that GOD exists?

of which your example fails anyway, on account of the missing variables I have already mentioned.

Not my problem if it fails. I expect it to fail. That does not mean that my experiment would not be empirical evidence for God if it succeed. Again I point you to my high jump example. A clearing a 2 meter bar would qualify as evidence of being able to clear a 2 meter bar, regardless of whether my brother partake or not.

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

Is that sarcasm? What do you think the word would means if not theoretic?

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.

There is no need to ask for clarification. It says so right there: what WOULD constitute evidence that God does exist. Why would you want to search for hidden meaning when the plain reading makes perfect sense?

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

And I will stick with mine: Empirical evidence would constitute evidence that God does exist.

[KenRU]

[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 wouldnt 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.

The god, as described in the bible, is quite identifiable and his actions had real-world and verifiable consequences. No reason to think god is limited now.

The god of the bible was quite active and willing to show his power and influence multiple times. 1st there was evidence of his existence, then there wasnt. Thus the claim is dubious at best.

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?

Again, I am not the one claiming he exists or has powers and has done amazing things. The demand for someone to back up his/her claim is not dishonest just because the person making the claim has a wild imagination.

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'

Im sensing a word game here so Im going to attempt to un-muddy the waters. Yes, if god or a person provided me with sufficient reason to believe he existed, then yes I would then believe in him.

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

I dont have to worry about such a thought. If this god did exist, he would already know that answer. And yet, it never happened, not while I was a believer, and not while Im not.

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 worlds 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?

That he exists. That he reveals himself to everyone. To name just a few. It is ironic that the evidence or reason most theists cite for their belief in a deity seems to be the same thought process as every other person from another faith.

Do all of these unprovable reasons have equal value, from faith to faith?

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'.

The only side of the equation here that is intractable is the theists side. I am open to new evidence and willing to admit I am wrong. Typically, it is the theist who claims to know the answers.

Or am I wrong here?

No, I do not. But I dont 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.

I never said empirical.

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

Good grief. Allow me to put this in a better light for you.

Would it be dishonest of you to expect a Buddhist to provide evidence to you that his religion is the true one? And if not, then what evidence would convince you that he was right, and your religion wrong? And if so, how could you ever know if that faith is the right one?

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?

That the bible is true. And that Jesus, and god purportedly did what they did, that I have a soul, that there is a heaven and hell. Etc. Etc.

Youre 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.

That is not all. They are also claiming that their holy book is an accurate representation of their god AND his activities.

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.

Or, you can just support your claim with evidence instead of looking to find fault in why your rationale MAY be rejected by others. It doesnt follow that because you have a fear of WHY your argument MAY be rejected therefore you dont have to support your assertion.

I firmly believe that invisible faeries inhabit my garden at a quantum level, inspiring a quantum-consciousness link with those who devoutly believe in their benevolence as they tend to the garden of our world. This statement is just as defensible by the logic that you just submitted.

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.

I disagree, it is a reliably accurate analogy.

There is a reason you have the theistic beliefs you do, and not one of Hinduism, Koranic or any other. You have not been convinced of their value or appeal. Therefore, you reject them. I just reject one more than you do.

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?

No, I am responsible for my belief system, no one else. It is my job to know why I believe what I believe. If I am duped, than that is my fault for not being skeptical of fantastical claims hence our current conversation.

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

How?

Seriously, the all-powerful, all-knowing god of the bible couldnt figure that out? Thats what you find befuddling?

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, wouldnt it?

In what way? Give an example.

God sends me a visit from one of my dead relatives. But really, what evidence I think is needed is irrelevant. The god of the bible already knows what would be needed to convince me.

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.

But there are countless tales of people from other religions and faiths telling of stories about their religiously inspired experiences " and yet you discount them (at least enough not to adopt their faith as your own).

So, sure you do.

I dont believe other ppls 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?

It would be the first step in me believing in the supernatural. Id be one step closer.

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.

If one makes an assertion, it is entirely reasonable to expect some form of rationale/evidence for said claim. My point all along is that some evidence is persuasive and others are not. And the claim should be considered truthful, factual, believable and/or reasonable accordingly.

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.

I await this information .

How is making something up sensible?

Because it is necessary.

No, it is not. Saying I dont know is both honest and sound, and prevents one from acting on beliefs that are unsound, false and possibly harmful.

Par for the course. Obviously sorting wheat from chaff is part of that process.

Exactly, and making things up is most definitely chaff.

Obviously one has to take into account what cannot be made up - that which is already made.

Do feel free to offer up evidence that god already exists

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 is 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.

My argument applies equally to politics and religion.

To abstain from the discussion taking place about religion/politics is to surrender a voice.

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.

Fair enough, but I submit that this is due to a limit to your imagination, but, for the most part, I agree with you in that I would be more inclined to look for non-supernatural explanations first.

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.

Turning water into wine is testable and verifiable and yet entirely impossible to duplicate.

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.

I have no recourse but to make a decision then, wouldnt I?

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

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

One can imagine the end of Pi, but it doesnt exist.

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.

What? We know scientifically that cards cant teleport and that ppl cant be in two places at once. Yes, it has been tested.

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.

So are you, each time you accept or discount an idea or argument.

You are looking to find GOD in the car yard of the salesman. Your analogy is inept.

Hardly. God is a concept and can be believed or discounted by the merits of the evidence presented for it. It does not deserve any special consideration.

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.

And now Ockhams Razor no longer applies? Evolution is far more simpler a solution than a god.

All the best

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 222 by KenRU]

And yet, it never happened, not while I was a believer, and not while Im not.

The question here seems to be, "then what caused you to become a believer?"

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 222 by KenRU]

And yet, it never happened, not while I was a believer, and not while Im not.

The question here seems to be, "then what caused you to become a believer?"

The same, I imagine, as everyone else. I was taught religion as a child and continued to learn and believe into adulthood.

[William]

[Replying to post 222 by KenRU]

The god, as described in the bible, is quite identifiable and his actions had real-world and verifiable consequences. No reason to think god is limited now.

When I speak of the idea of GOD, I do not limit it to simply the biblical idea of GOD.

Even so, how are these actions attributed to the biblical idea of GOD any different from human actions? That is the core of the idea of this demand for evidence of GOD.

Are you suggesting in your expression above that GOD is proved evident through these alleged actions?
If not, then why are you suggesting such constitutes evidence of GOD?

Again, I am not the one claiming he exists or has powers and has done amazing things. The demand for someone to back up his/her claim is not dishonest just because the person making the claim has a wild imagination.

The context of my comments had to do with demands made which were not attached to claims which could be tested using scientific process.

It was not about 'having wild imaginations' (whatever that is supposed to mean) but - as an example, someone claiming GOD had healed their terminal disease, or restored their sight etc. Stuff which could be varied through scientific process.

Im sensing a word game here so Im going to attempt to un-muddy the waters. Yes, if god or a person provided me with sufficient reason to believe he existed, then yes I would then believe in him.

Then I ask you, what would you consider sufficient reason to believe GOD exists...in other words, what kind of evidence would convince you.

In relation to that and belief - the words belief and knowing are often conflated, which is where the confusion can be sourced - where the waters are muddied.

If you have evidence that cars exist, would you tell everyone you believe cars exist?

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

I dont have to worry about such a thought. If this god did exist, he would already know that answer.

Which is to tell the reader that you do have such thoughts as the GOD should know those thoughts.

But the reader does not know those thoughts and your not answering the question isn't helpful to the reader in understanding what your reasoning is really based upon.

I am open to new evidence and willing to admit I am wrong.

Again, the reader is left mystified as to what this 'new evidence' would have to be in order for you to know GOD exists.

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

That he exists. That he reveals himself to everyone. To name just a few.

This leaves the reader no more enlightened as to what you would consider evidence of GODs existence.

What does it mean 'That he reveals himself to everyone'? In what way? Please explain to the reader how this revelation would happen in which you could then accept it as evidence that GOD exists.

It is a matter of clarity. The dishonesty is in the demand for unspecified empirical evidence.

I never said empirical.

So what are you wanting as evidence then? That is the question.

Are you willing to accept evidence which is not based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic?

Would it be dishonest of you to expect a Buddhist to provide evidence to you that his religion is the true one?

Even if I was interested in finding out what is a 'true religion' I wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to start. I am not one interested in religion or for that matter, under the impression there must be a true religion, so even if a Buddhist did claim to me that his religion was the true one, the idea is of no interest to me.

And if not, then what evidence would convince you that he was right, and your religion wrong? And if so, how could you ever know if that faith is the right one?

Is this what you base you criteria on re evidence of GOD existing? That there must be a true religion - a right religion you can put your faith in? Your reasoning is confusing. If you had evidence for something being true, why would you require faith?

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

That the bible is true. And that Jesus, and god purportedly did what they did, that I have a soul, that there is a heaven and hell.

Well we are halfway there. You have provided some examples of things you would like evidence for.

Now all that is required is that you explain what type of evidence you would expect in order to be convinced these things are true.

Take the first example. The claim is that the bible is true. What type of evidence would you expect to see which would convince you of this being the actual case?

The claim theists are making is that GOD exists.

That is not all. They are also claiming that their holy book is an accurate representation of their god AND his activities.

Never mind that. I was speaking to generic theism, which has to include the idea of the existence of GOD.

Rather than be distracted as to which - if any - religions and their artifacts are true or not, IF GOD exists, what would you consider to be evidence of that?

Obviously first off you would have to provide some basic outline of what you mean by 'GOD'.

Once you have define what you mean by GOD, then you can proceed with answering the question as to what would constitute evidence that GOD exists.

For example, if your definition of GOD is "That which is an imaginary being" and define 'imaginary' as 'that which does not exist' then your definition of GOD is 'That which does not exist".

In that, one can then ascertain that for you there could be nothing constituting evidence that GOD exists, based on your definition of GOD.

If you take someone else's definition of GOD as say - GOD is an entity living in another universe which created this universe, you could claim that this definition is no different than the definition that GOD is an imaginary being, provided of course you have evidence that other universes don't actually exist and are thus imaginary.

Bearing in mind of course that we do not know that is the case or not.

For me, when faced with that idea of GOD, I approach it more in the manner a detective would. I do not automatically decide that 'all ideas of alternate universes have to be considered imaginary until evidence of them is made available' due to the overall subject matter and our inability to solve it conclusively at present.

So setting presumption one way or the other aside, one can take ones detective work into the philosophical.

I wont go into that process in this post. My Member Notes speak to that in greater depth. If you have already made up your mind that alternate universes cannot actually exist because they are 'imaginary.' such information will be of no interest to you.

Suffice to say, for those who are interested, there a myriad of puzzle pieces which altogether make up a pretty convincing picture. To those interested.

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.

Or, you can just support your claim with evidence instead of looking to find fault in why your rationale MAY be rejected by others.

You missed the point. It is about efficiency as much as anything else. I share what evidence I have in general through the platform of my members notes. If you want specifics, it is fair enough for me to ask. Our overall experience of this universe is complex so it is simply unrealistic to demand simply explanations and expect this to be accepted as a rational demand.
Speaking for myself, there is no fear that my rational MAY be rejected by others. I am more interested in their reasons as to WHY they may reject.

Which of course circles around to that question again. What would constitute evidence for YOU, that my God does exist? I gave a brief overall definition, so the ball is in your court now.

I firmly believe that invisible faeries inhabit my garden at a quantum level, inspiring a quantum-consciousness link with those who devoutly believe in their benevolence as they tend to the garden of our world. This statement is just as defensible by the logic that you just submitted.

Indeed it is, and there is no logical reason why I should have a problem with your belief that invisible faeries inhabit your garden at a quantum level, inspiring a quantum-consciousness link with you regarding their benevolence as they tend to the garden of our world. It is not something I personally would require evidence for. Therefore I have no description of what would constitute evidence that your claim is true.

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

I disagree, it is a reliably accurate analogy.

Okay, so for you, GOD is like the analogy...that is a partial on your definition of GOD for which we are trying to establish some clarity about. It's a start...

There is a reason you have the theistic beliefs you do, and not one of Hinduism, Koranic or any other. You have not been convinced of their value or appeal. Therefore, you reject them. I just reject one more than you do.

Totally presumptuous. An astute seeker of knowledge will read my Member Notes and derive a far different conclusion, less presumptive for that. you have entirely the wrong end of the stick there KenRU.

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, wouldnt it?

In what way? Give an example.

God sends me a visit from one of my dead relatives.

What does that mean to the reader? What do you mean by 'GOD' (what is your personal definition of 'GOD'?) and what does it actually mean 'a visit from one of your dead relatives'? Do you mean a vision of some sort? Please explain the nature of the visit in terms that allow the reader a greater understanding of what would constitute evidence that your relatives is not actually dead like you thought they were.

But really, what evidence I think is needed is irrelevant.

No it isn't. It is central to the demand. If indeed it is actually IS irrelevant, then okay...argument of fallacy of demand is sufficiently proven.

The god of the bible already knows what would be needed to convince me.

The reader is left with the impression you believe the GOD of the bible is real, and knows what would be needed to convince you.
However, the reader is not the god of the bible and does not know what would convince you. That is why the question "What would constitute for you evidence that God does exist?." is asked.

Do you actually KNOW the answer yourself? Obviously you believe that there is an answer to that question because the biblical GOD knows the answer. Are you saying the biblical GOD knows the answer even if you don't? Is that what the reader should conclude here?

Or are you just hiding the answer from the reader and claiming there is indeed an answer but only you and the biblical GOD are privy to that information?

Obvious the reader requires clarity from you on this overall question.

I dont believe other ppls 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?

It would be the first step in me believing in the supernatural. Id be one step closer.

But you do not even believe other peoples stories, so even if you had such an experience yourself, you would simply become another person with a ghost story.
In that, why would you bother trying to convince someone who has had no such experience, that your experience is at least good enough for you to be 'one step closer' to believing in the supernatural?

As well as that, if they demanded evidence from you to confirm your story was true, what kind of evidence would you be able to give to them? Would you find it logically consistent to inquire what kind of evidence they would accept from you which for them would constitute evidence that ghosts exist?

If one makes an assertion, it is entirely reasonable to expect some form of rationale/evidence for said claim.

So you assert that you have seen a ghost and thus are one step closer to believing in the supernatural, and the demand is that you provide evidence which for the other constitutes evidence for your claim and you ask them what they think would constitute evidence for ghosts existing and they tell you that if they had an experience themselves, then that would at least get them one step closer to believing the supernatural exists, and you only logical response would have to be that you cannot provide the experience they require, and neither have you claimed that you could provide the experience for them. Their demand for evidence is thus fallacy. The fallacy of demand.

My point all along is that some evidence is persuasive and others are not. And the claim should be considered truthful, factual, believable and/or reasonable accordingly.

It is still the fallacy of demand when you are unable or unwilling to say what constitutes persuasive evidence and what does not. First establish that and then if logically able, create your demands around that.

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.

I await this information .

This information is not just going to fall into your lap. You have to do the work to obtain it, and it is so fragmented that attention to detail is required. Lots of time is required. Careful observation and detective work is required. An ability to trust that one's subjective experiences are relevant is required. Deep and sincere introspection is required. Ability to understand ego and ego based distractions is required. The ability to place to one side the notion/belief that all experience is manifested by the brain and that you are an emergent property of your brain and thus nothing more than chemical processes, is required.

Simply put, the information is there to acquire, but if your expectation are that others should provide you with whatever constitute evidence of that, then no matter how long you will exist on this planet having this experience, you will be left 'awaiting'.

Indeed, with the advent of the internet, our job of gathering and sorting the information is easier in one way, but harder as well because there is so much information - but either way, personal effort is necessary and where you put that effort is a reflection of what you think is important and are obviously interested in, and this applies just as well to what, for you, would constitute evidence that God does exist.

How important is it for you to get the correct answer to that question?

How is making something up sensible?

Because it is necessary.

No, it is not. Saying I dont know is both honest and sound, and prevents one from acting on beliefs that are unsound, false and possibly harmful.

Making something up does not mean one has believe in it being true. One can make something up and still understand that one does not know if what is being made up is true or not. Indeed, the phrase 'make it up' is not condoning anything untoward in and of itself.

The nature of our situation simply forces us to have to make things up on the fly as it were. That is what I am referring to when I say it is necessary. I am not suggesting what is made up should be considered 'true' or 'false', or that people should make things up which are blatantly false, or useful in manipulating others in unethical ways.

Obviously sorting wheat from chaff is part of that process.

Exactly, and making things up is most definitely chaff.

You made that up. But is it true, based on my further elaborating what I myself meant by 'making things up'?

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.

Fair enough, but I submit that this is due to a limit to your imagination, but, for the most part, I agree with you in that I would be more inclined to look for non-supernatural explanations first.

Your opinion on my limited imagination aside, the point was of course, that the particular event would not constitute evidence that God does exist. You appear to agree with me about this, and all I am saying is that this should be the premise we adopt in all such example of evidence, made up scenarios or real experiences, claims or conjectures et al. We look for evidence within the situation and in relation to concepts which involve possible answers to questions which are still being asked because current evidence does not conclusively show one way or the other and thus can be interpreted one way or another - such as 'how did the universe come into existence' the answer 'GOD did it' can be tabled. If one is to protest about this, and demand evidence for GOD existing in the first place, one has to also explain what would constitute said evidence demanded otherwise the demand has to be considered a fallacy.

Of course, the better way to approach the idea 'GOD did it' is to delve into it more and ask questions like 'how then should we define 'GOD' who was able to create this universe'?
Not 'show me the evidence that GOD exists.'

Because, then one can correctly ask the one demanding such evidence to explain examples of what kind of evidence they would accept as constituting evidence that GOD exists.

Turning water into wine is testable and verifiable and yet entirely impossible to duplicate.

If it is possible to test and verify, then it in not impossible to duplicate.
OR;
If it is impossible to duplicate, it is not possible to test and verify.

Otherwise it is 'have you cake and eat it' time.

:D/

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.

I have no recourse but to make a decision then, wouldnt I?

Why?

Why couldn't you just remain undecided, and continue to say that you don't know?
What about that situation constitutes evidence that GOD does exist?

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

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

One can imagine the end of Pi, but it doesnt exist.

That is a claim. Can you show the reader that one can imagine the end of Pi? If you or anyone else cannot show this to be the case, then your assertion that imagination is boundless can be shown to be incorrect.

We know scientifically that cards cant teleport and that ppl cant be in two places at once. Yes, it has been tested.

Tell that to someone who sees cards doing just that. I can't say I have ever seen a magician be in two places at once...hang on...googled it and had no results.

My point was that people are going to believe what their eyes see and if science is not able to explain the illusion, they can and will consign their own explanations to it, and in that laws of physics need not apply because the eye has seen those laws broken.

I was watching one such youtube video recently about magic, magicians...

here 'tis;

Real Demons Caught Assisting World's Top Magicians - ILLUMINATI MAGIC EXPOSED!

To such folk, this witnessing of the laws of physics being broken constitutes evidence that demons exist. Indeed there will be Christians who participate on this forum who believe demons influence human beings and who could easily be convinced that magicians are able to do these amazing feats of magic because of demons. The magicians abilities constitute evidence that demons exist.

If there isn't a clear scientific explanation for such things, then there is less chance these people will be convinced it is all just the mechanics of illusion made to LOOK real but isn't actually breaking any laws of physics. Simply stating that 'it goes against what science tells us are the laws of physics, so therefore cannot be real and must be a trick', is not good enough. They have to be shown exactly how the illusion was done where the laws of physics were not broken.

Otherwise they are left with having to have faith in everything scientists tell them, and since when has science being about belief? Since when is it acceptable that someone should take the word of a scientist without any evidence to back up the claim?

Now one could rightfully enough say something along the lines that 'any reasonable person' should accept that the laws of physics can not be broken. That would be fine if one could just leave it at that, but this is never the case.

There are all those who make it a mission in life to try and convince others that GOD does not exist, and that everything is simply the mindless product of coinciding events perfectly explainable without having to include the idea of any Creator.

Such as is the case, these missionaries with their message of 'everything is material' need to fully understand what it is they are up against, and if that means explaining how magicians do their tricks then so be it. It is a small price to pay in relation to the overall stated agenda of the missionaries to eradicate ignorance using science.

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

So are you, each time you accept or discount an idea or argument.

My habit is to accept that which is plainly evident and never discount and idea or argument, other than where it shows obvious holes in reasoning, in which case it isn't really the kind of argument which requires accepting.

I do this in relation to ideas of GOD as well. granted it is a little more tricky perhaps, but can be done.

Hardly. God is a concept and can be believed or discounted by the merits of the evidence presented for it. It does not deserve any special consideration.

Not what I was suggesting. But it does need to be kept in context rather than delegated to that of 'car salesman' which of course also depends on one's own definition in the first instance, which I mention in more detail earlier on in this post.

If it were just a case of believing or discounting by the merits of evidence presented for GOD, then we circle back to finding the answer to the question "What would constitute evidence for you that God exists" in order to then ascertain what you think the merits are.

And now Ockhams Razor no longer applies? Evolution is far more simpler a solution than a god.

Not really. Perhaps Occam's razor is no match for GODs Laser , because a razor simply does not cut it accurately enough. Simply questions demand simply answers. Complexity requires complex answers. There is no way around that. Evolution might be far more simpler to work out than 'GOD' but it is really only showing the way in which something complex came about, and to interpret that evidence as showing a GOD creator intelligent entity is NOT behind it all, and the reason it exists, is to presume more than the evidence actually does show.

For me personally, I have exactly zero trouble in accepting the idea of a GOD using the process of biological evolution as the method best for the task. One uses what is available for one to use.
In the same vein, I have no problem with the idea that the planet earth itself is the form in which this entity GOD uses It's creative intelligence to work through.

So the evidence is the same. For me it constitutes evidence that GOD exists, for others it does not.

The difference isn't in the evidence itself but in how that evidence is interpreted.


Forum : On creating something from nothing ~ By David Darling

[Filthy Tugboat]

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?

I think the only evidence that I could take seriously is being given clarity of the issue from God. And even then I would question it if it weren't universally given, maybe instead deducing I had gone crazy.

[Kenisaw]

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?

Don't know, try me. I've been asking for empirical evidence for a long time, and haven't seen any yet. I've been told that the universe is proof, but existence doesn't proof source, so that leads nowhere. I've heard various logical arguments that aren't logical and full of holes (and since logic doesn't require empirical data this falls short of a verifiable evidentiary standard anyway).

From what I've seen we are long on claims and short on data around here.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Essentially the same evidence an archaeologist or forensic scientist uses, to determine that something was probably not an accident!

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the only evidence that I could take seriously is being given clarity of the issue from God. And even then I would question it if it weren't universally given, maybe instead deducing I had gone crazy.

To be fair, if the bible is to believed God does intend to provide such evidence. It seems as if He understands that some will only concede to direct undeniable personal contact.

JW

[William]

[Replying to post 229 by JehovahsWitness]

To be fair, if the bible is to believed God does intend to provide such evidence. It seems as if He understands that some will only concede to direct undeniable personal contact.

Face to face contact with an alien/interdenominational species leader does not mean one is standing before GOD.