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?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As with all things, I would require some way that I can personally verify this god's existence.

It's really the same question for anything. If I claimed a purple unicorn lived in my back yard, what evidence would be required to show it exists?

Some things that I would personally find convincing:

1) When I pray for something that helps someone else that prayer would be granted. i.e. for non selfish prayers, the prayer would be answered definitively. If the answer happened to be "No", then a clear sign other than simply nothing would be required. Example, if my friend lost a finger due to an accident. I pray for complete healing. My friend either gets a new finger or I get some clear sign it's not going to happen like a flash in the sky, or just a simple "no" in my ear.

2) Christians would clearly be better off and better protected than all other groups. If it was undeniable that once you became a Christian you would no longer 'fail' in so many ways just like everyone else. i.e. Christians would never get sick or if they did, they would be healed quickly. Christians would not represent any significant portion of the prison population or be victims of crime. In other words, if Christians has some demonstrable advantage over non Christians. Fanciful stories of 'being saved', etc. are not demonstrable.

3) Direct evidence of this god's existence. i.e. some observable way to detect this god is actually there. Stories, warm fuzzy feelings, and large groups of people yelling hallelujah don't count.

[paarsurrey1]

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?

Evident is an attribute of One-True-God and therefore He does not, necessarily, need and evidence or proof to start with. God is Evident.
Regards

[Willum]

What is the matter with the same evidence that horses, unicorns, the Andromeda galaxy, microbes, dragons, even Planet X exists?

Why is the most significant thing in the universe exempt from evidence of existence, indeed, this creature never even has to do anything that can be verified.

Even God's flood is exempt from needing evidence. Although, it is more the Bible that is exempt from evidence: No Ark of the Covenant, no Ten Commandments tablets, not geological record of the flood, no Lazarus' memoirs, no carpentry works by Jesus, or so on.

What gives?

[marco]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Universal conversion. An announcement from a being a thousand feet high that causes Christians and Muslims immediately to throw aside their fictions. As an illustration of good intent he might help Trump deal with North Korea. As a bonus, no more death nor disease nor mosquitoes nor hippopotami.

And a little apology for arriving so late.

[paarsurrey1]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Universal conversion. An announcement from a being a thousand feet high that causes Christians and Muslims immediately to throw aside their fictions. As an illustration of good intent he might help Trump deal with North Korea. As a bonus, no more death nor disease nor mosquitoes nor hippopotami.

And a little apology for arriving so late.

Universal conversion

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

[Neatras]

[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."

[marco]

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.

[William]

[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?"

[Mithrae]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Despite common usage, I think it's a little misleading to speak of evidence for something. Evidence is simply the available facts and information providing context for the evaluation of hypotheses' plausibility.

If we speak of evidence for something, the only reasonable way that can be understood is that the given facts increase the probability/plausibility of a statement being true. That certainly includes common usage, but the problem is that such a conception also means that the existence of New York is evidence for the existence of Spiderman: Spiderman(A) lives in New York(B), so (A+B) is more probable in a world where (B) is confirmed than in one where it isn't.

Similarly, a thousand foot high shining figure appearing at Mecca and booming out that the Muslims should acknowledge Jesus as their God and saviour could be considered evidence for the Christian God; or it could be considered 'evidence' for a conspiracy of billionaire Christians using advanced holographic technology and colluding with the Saudi government for unknown reasons. Relative to the absence of such a figure, the billionaire conspiracy has been made more probable by the observed facts.

So the observed fact of the giant evangelist provides more context for evaluating different hypotheses, and the Christian-God hypothesis might be considered the best explanation, but I'm not sure it would be correct to say that the big display was evidence for it, per se. The conclusion is not implicit in the raw data, because we know that often such implicit assumptions are misleading.