What empirical evidence could there be for God?

[Haven]

In my years of debating God's existence (both as an evangelical Christian and an atheist), I have heard countless philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), Anselm's Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument, among others, all seek to establish God's existence through the use of pure logic and reasoning. However, I have yet to see a Christian put forth an empirical case for God's existence (empirical, in this case, means physical, testable, analyzable by science). In fact, I don't feel that it is even possible, in principle, to put forth an empirical argument for God's existence, because of the common properties assigned to God (i.e., omnipresence, omniscience, timelessness, etc.).

So, for the debate question: What empirical evidence could there be for God? How would we discover this evidence? How could we determine it pointed to a God rather than a naturalistic entity?

For the sake of this discussion, a definition of God:

(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."
(

[AquinasD]

You cannot take your eyeballs out in order to look back on them.

[Flail]

In my years of debating God's existence (both as an evangelical Christian and an atheist), I have heard countless philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), Anselm's Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument, among others, all seek to establish God's existence through the use of pure logic and reasoning. However, I have yet to see a Christian put forth an empirical case for God's existence (empirical, in this case, means physical, testable, analyzable by science). In fact, I don't feel that it is even possible, in principle, to put forth an empirical argument for God's existence, because of the common properties assigned to God (i.e., omnipresence, omniscience, timelessness, etc.).

So, for the debate question: What empirical evidence could there be for God? How would we discover this evidence? How could we determine it pointed to a God rather than a naturalistic entity?

For the sake of this discussion, a definition of God:

(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."
(

Well....your defined God has no verifiable existence, no evidence whatsoever...nothing....by what method did you derive the characteristics you ascribe....what else can you come up with....seems the add-ons to your definition could be endless and limitless? Is it not a pointless exercise to concoct definitions and then demand verifiable evidence for such creations? Such meaninglessness demonstrates the logic of Ignosticism and the ridiculousness of claiming that there either is a 'God' or there isn't.

[Goat]

You cannot take your eyeballs out in order to look back on them.

Yet, you can use a mirror to reflect upon them, and provide empirical data that way.

[Haven]

You cannot take your eyeballs out in order to look back on them.

Maybe not, however, you can still examine them by looking through a mirror.

I think a universe with a god/gods would be noticeably different than one without such a being/beings. To me, a universe created by a god/gods would have noticeable marks of design, however, this universe lacks them. I also feel that only a godless universe would contain gratuitous evil, and this universe certainly has its share of gratuitous evil.

[100%atheist]

In my years of debating God's existence (both as an evangelical Christian and an atheist), I have heard countless philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), Anselm's Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument, among others, all seek to establish God's existence through the use of pure logic and reasoning. However, I have yet to see a Christian put forth an empirical case for God's existence (empirical, in this case, means physical, testable, analyzable by science). In fact, I don't feel that it is even possible, in principle, to put forth an empirical argument for God's existence, because of the common properties assigned to God (i.e., omnipresence, omniscience, timelessness, etc.).

So, for the debate question: What empirical evidence could there be for God? How would we discover this evidence? How could we determine it pointed to a God rather than a naturalistic entity?

For the sake of this discussion, a definition of God:

(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."
(

If we define God as a creature that is omnipresent + omniscient + benevolent in human moral sense then such God does not exist. Also, if God is the "first cause" of reality then God is logically not real.

If we consider (1) and (2) only, then in an unlikely event that such God is still "alive" (surviving the Big Bang and overcoming the boredom of the existence for 14 billion years) we are not likely to catch him with freaking laser beams unless s/he comes forward and communicates with us directly (I mean freaking laser beams).

[spayne]

In my years of debating God's existence (both as an evangelical Christian and an atheist), I have heard countless philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), Anselm's Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument, among others, all seek to establish God's existence through the use of pure logic and reasoning. However, I have yet to see a Christian put forth an empirical case for God's existence (empirical, in this case, means physical, testable, analyzable by science). In fact, I don't feel that it is even possible, in principle, to put forth an empirical argument for God's existence, because of the common properties assigned to God (i.e., omnipresence, omniscience, timelessness, etc.).

So, for the debate question: What empirical evidence could there be for God? How would we discover this evidence? How could we determine it pointed to a God rather than a naturalistic entity?

For the sake of this discussion, a definition of God:

(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."
(

The same "evidence" that "proves" there is a God is the same stuff that is used to prove there is no God. The Christian looks at the Grand Canyon and sees the evidence of God everwhere. The atheist looks at the Grand Canyon and sees a beautiful canyon that nature formed over millions of years.

This is not an empirical evidence issue. It is a worldview issue. Everyone sees the world through the lense of his/her worldview. Therefore, I think it's pretty fair to say that every piece of evidence that a Christian introduces into this thread will likely be discredited in some way by a nonbeliever/atheist.

Here is an example: eyes. As a Christian, I believe that the immense complexity of the eyes is a beautiful example of the handiwork of God. But an atheist just sees evolution at work. Both of these perspective, by the way, are faith based.
I don't think there is a single person on this earth who understands completely how the human eye came to be. So whether you believe God or evolution did it, faith in each system is a prerequisite.

Also, I think it's worth noting that the God of the Bible meets all of the five characteristics you listed in your debate question. So the empirical evidence in this case would be the Bible.

[Haven]

Spayne, do you view Christianity/God as a set of truth claims or simply a "personal path?"

If Christianity/God is simply a personal path, then it is subjective and no more true than atheism, Hinduism, Paganism or any other (non)belief system.

If Christianity/God is a set of truth claims, then it must be supported with evidence.

Remember, truth is objective, not subjective. If one wishes to declare God/Christianity true, he/she must put forward some supporting evidence.

[spayne]

Spayne, do you view Christianity/God as a set of truth claims or simply a "personal path?"

If Christianity/God is simply a personal path, then it is subjective and no more true than atheism, Hinduism, Paganism or any other (non)belief system.

If Christianity/God is a set of truth claims, then it must be supported with evidence.

Remember, truth is objective, not subjective. If one wishes to declare God/Christianity true, he/she must put forward some supporting evidence.

Christianity is not only objective truth, it is the only purely objective truth, and is personified by the One who said "I am the truth." Truth is not a claim nor is it an idea. It is a person, and his name is Jesus Christ.

Or consider it this way: if there was a God who really did create the Universe, human beings, and all of life as we know it, then it would be the responsibility of that God to reveal himself to people. He would have to take great care in revealing his character, his purposes, and his expectations to mankind so that they could know him. The Bible reveals all of these things. It is the message of God to mankind, and it answers all five of the qualities you expressed in your debate question. But wait, it gets better! Instead of just telling people about his character, God eventually comes into the world and reveals himself directly to the world, through the person of Jesus Christ.

The Bible, in this regard, IS the empirical evidence for God.

[Goat]

Spayne, do you view Christianity/God as a set of truth claims or simply a "personal path?"

If Christianity/God is simply a personal path, then it is subjective and no more true than atheism, Hinduism, Paganism or any other (non)belief system.

If Christianity/God is a set of truth claims, then it must be supported with evidence.

Remember, truth is objective, not subjective. If one wishes to declare God/Christianity true, he/she must put forward some supporting evidence.

Christianity is not only objective truth, it is the only purely objective truth, and is personified by the One who said "I am the truth." Truth is not a claim nor is it an idea. It is a person, and his name is Jesus Christ.

If it is an objective truth, then you can provide empirical evidence. Do you have Anything beyond religious promotional material and unsupported claims?

There is a claim of 'truth'. Can you demonstrate it is , indeed truth?

Do you know what empirical evidence is?? Making a statement that looks to be a faith driven statement and a sermon is not evidence.


And no, the bible is not empirical evidence of God. It is empirical evidence of religious belief, which is entirely different.