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?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 88 by Danmark]

Sorry but no.

Intelligent Design is not the same as religion.

The court, in the Dover case, determined exactly the opposite. 'Intelligent Design' was claimed by the local school board to be science and thus should be taught in public school along with evolution. The court determined otherwise. In its opinion the judge (a Christian Republican) cited the fact that even the school board's own witnesses could offer no scientific findings to support their opinion.

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District

You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how much it is opposed by logic, fact, science, and the courts. But by all these measures you are just plain dead wrong.

[William]

[Replying to post 91 by Danmark]

The court, in the Dover case, determined exactly the opposite. 'Intelligent Design' was claimed by the local school board to be science and thus should be taught in public school along with evolution. The court determined otherwise. In its opinion the judge (a Christian Republican) cited the fact that even the school board's own witnesses could offer no scientific findings to support their opinion.

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District

You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how much it is opposed by logic, fact, science, and the courts. But by all these measures you are just plain dead wrong.

Not knowing the details of the case it does appear that the Court ruled against this because it was going to be taught IN OPPOSITION to the theory of evolution, rather than alongside as a possible reason for evolution, which is the way I have explained ID.
My explanation in no way denigrates or disparages the theory of evolution.

The court had every good sense to deny requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution if the evidence of testimony showed the court plainly that this indeed was the intention of those wanting to do so.

The theory of Intelligent Design is not something which requires denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution, and certainly you cannot show where i have used it in this manner.

So no. I am not 'plain dead wrong' and your attempt to conflate what I have said regarding ID and this court procedure is clearly a fallacy.

[Bust Nak]

The theory of Intelligent Design is not something which requires denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution, and certainly you cannot show where i have used it in this manner.

"Intelligent design" absolutely requires denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution. That you don't use it in that manner just mean you choose the wrong term. It seems you are thinking of "theistic evolution," may I suggest you use that term instead, when you don't actually mean to denigrate the theory of evolution.

[Danmark]

The theory of Intelligent Design is not something which requires denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution, and certainly you cannot show where i have used it in this manner.

"Intelligent design" absolutely requires denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution. That you don't use it in that manner just mean you choose the wrong term. It seems you are thinking of "theistic evolution," may I suggest you use that term instead, when you don't actually mean to denigrate the theory of evolution.

Exactly!
The court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruled the school district could not teach ID as an alternate explanation for the diversity of life. ID claims that an 'intelligent designer,' AKA 'God,' designed each and every species in their current forms, tho' they dissemble this point, recognizing that the evidence is too overwhelming to support their original argument that this 'designer'' created each and every species exactly as we find it today. The Judge found ID to not be science at all and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
It is wholly incompatible with science in general and evolution in particular, despite their efforts to obfuscate. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php
They still admit they believe in 'irreducible complexity,' that some features of a species could not have evolved.

[paarsurrey1]

Universal conversion to what? Does one mean conversion to the No-God position, please?
Regards

Well that would hardly be evidence that God exists. I was thinking that if he made things so clear that the entire human race felt compelled to accept him, that would be evidence of a sort.

I know Christianity and Islam used swords to persuade, but I don't think that shows God exists - it shows how persuasive a sword can be.

If the world universally turned away from belief in God, that wouldn't in itself prove there is no God but it might jolly God along to assert his existence more strenuously - if he cared. He doesn't seem to.

I was thinking that if he made things so clear that the entire human race felt compelled to accept him, that would be evidence of a sort.

There is no compulsion in the Truthful Religion. I don't think it is a reasonable demand:
[2:257] There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=256
People are to accept One-True-God with reasonable arguments not per force. Right, please?
Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 3 by paarsurrey1]

I'd appreciate if you didn't just recite tired pseudo-aphorisms that literally any perceived prophet, fanatic, or religious observant could use to justify any number of intellectually daft and empirically hollow claims.

If your god is so stumped by any method of providing physical evidence, due to some weird deficiency that leaves him unable to conjure up a magic trick (despite that being abundant in ancient mythical tales), then that defeats the notion that he's even this omnimax creature Christians purport he is.

What I'm saying is: Your god concept isn't supported by anything; it's a vaporous notion floating among the clouds.

Why would a god rely on such fallacious reasoning as begging the question to lure in new believers? Wouldn't your god know that deceptive, anti-intellectual claims such as "god is self-evident" are able to be slapped onto every false claim known to man?

I know liamconnor's not a fan of this, seeing as how he's made a post on it, but if I were trying to convey information to someone, I would not make the claim something is "self-evident," and then rebuff all attempts to get further information. Likewise, I would make note of how con artists and snake oil salesmen use manipulative tactics to sell their bogus cure-alls, and I'd not do exactly what they do.

If it walks like a charlatan, talks like a charlatan, and acts like a charlatan... Then I guess it must be a god?

paarsurrey1, if you've got the almighty lord of all backing you, you may wanna ask him to give you a more concrete and compelling argument. With all the wisdom of the universe, surely he can do better in funneling an argument through you than, "Well, god does exist because existence is one of his qualities, and that's a fact, jack."

I don't agree with the contents of one's post. It is Atheism's "No-God" position that is best suited to the superstitious, mythical and irrational approach. Kindly just give one positive argument that supports the "No-God" position of Atheism, please.

Regards

[marco]

I don't agree with the contents of one's post. It is Atheism's "No-God" position that is best suited to the superstitious, mythical and irrational approach. Kindly just give one positive argument that supports the "No-God" position of Atheism, please.

Regards

Atheists tend to THINK their position; they examine the god position; they find the usual arguments to suggest a god exists unconvincing. Rationally, they reach their conclusion.
It is safer, of course, to conclude that we do not know; we cannot prove there is a God but we cannot prove there is no God.

You are obviously a nice person and you are happy to accept that Allah exists. For me, Yahweh and Allah are human constructions. Why do I think this? Because they are endowed with the very qualities that their old creators would want them to have. They are powerful punishers - but merciful to the obedient; they torture their enemies but are kind to their followers; hell has dirty water, heaven has fruit and pure streams, modelled on the Arabic lands. So God and heaven come obviously from the minds of their inventors.

I agree that we have mathematical accuracy; objects move in elliptical courses which we can measure using mathematics. We can then suppose there was a mathematician to make those courses. I think this is the earliest of all conclusions to suggest a God but it is a conclusion from need. We don't know so we supply a being. But there is absolutely no evidence that this mighty being moves, works, lives far less forgives. To build God from ignorance or longing is not sufficient cause for saying: There is a God. There is no such thing as Revelation - there is just blind acceptance.

At a future date we might have an answer that improves on the Big Bang; our examination of the mysteries of quantum physics may reveal something more magical than gods. But for now, we do not know. That is all we can say.

[William]

[Replying to post 94 by Danmark]

According to wiki:

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God.

This is not true in that, while it can be agreed that religions argue for the existence of their particular idea of GOD, and those are often ideas which include that their idea of GOD created the universe, they are still using ID as platform for supporting their idea of GOD in relation to their particular beliefs regarding HOW their idea of GOD created the universe.

I have not argued for any religious idea of GOD being involved with the creation of life on the planet and I have not been denigrating or disparaging of the theory of evolution in regards to the notion of their being Intelligent Design involved with that process.

It is natural that organised religions would argue ID, but the concept is far older than organised religions anyway, and has always been a part of human thinking. ID is not the invention of organised religions. Adapting the concepts and tweaking it to suit ones particular idea of GOD does not mean the idea of ID was created by any organised religion.

"Intelligent design" absolutely requires denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution.

Yet I have shown in my own use of ID, that it is not necessary to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution, so therefore your statement of absolutism is demonstrated as being a fallacy.

That you don't use it in that manner just mean you choose the wrong term. It seems you are thinking of "theistic evolution," may I suggest you use that term instead, when you don't actually mean to denigrate the theory of evolution.

The thing is, these are terms and Theistic Evolution must in itself propose the notion of an Intelligent Designer, otherwise it would not be 'theism'. This is clearly another example of using language inappropriately, and besides the point for that.

What happened? Did Christians take ownership of the term 'Intelligent Design', and did non religious theists decide it was better to let them have it and create another term for - what amounts to being the same thing?

And now one cannot use the phrase 'Intelligent Design' because it has been used as a device to try and denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution?

What the phrase really denotes - and why I think it acceptable to use it, is a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity is directly involved with the process of evolution. Indeed the process of evolution is the representation of the handiwork of this creative intelligence.

That idea of itself does not denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution. It simple takes something which is evident and interprets it differently than simply claiming the process as a mindless accident, which is the only other way the theory of evolution can be interpreted.

Theistic Evolution requires the notion of an Intelligent Designer.
Materialistic Evolution does not.

The difference, as I have been pointing out, is simply in the way the evidence is interpreted.

[Peter]

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?

A God could easily provide every human on the planet with the custom evidence that would convince each individual He existed beyond a shadow of a doubt. A better question is why no gods have done that.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 98 by William]

Utter balderdash. Your posts ignore the facts, both scientific and those proved in court when both sides have opportunity to present evidence. The history of 'intelligent design,' as well as their own websites, show they are a thinly disguised version of the ancient 'first mover' or 'first cause' argument which says that since buildings are designed the animals of the Earth also must have a designer. As I have demonstrated, and as the courts have found, this is religious creationism wrapped in new paper. The ID argument and its claims are dishonest. This is what the court actually found, dishonesty. Before you continue in this nonsense, you should at least read the case.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ision.html
or at least a summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District