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?

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by Realworldjack]

And so each 'side' ...
...holds and end of the same rope,...
...while everybody, still undecided, skip.

*Nods Knowingly*

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As for 'a God' in general? Obviously nothing in the realm of laboratory science. We would have to look for godless theories which account for reality as experienced by men. The data is the near universal collaboration of living in this world. The theory would would give sense to it all.

As for the Christian God? Historical evidence: A natural explanation for the origins of Christianity which have explanatory power and scope, plausibility and probability, and a minimal number of ad hoc assumptions.

[benchwarmer]

Then have you personally verified that places like Tehran and Pyongyang exist? The point is the same either way: For 99% of the things we accept as true, whether of existence or more specific details, our personal verification doesn't even enter the question. Therefore it seems rather strange and suspicious how frequently that is put forth as the #1 criteria in the case of god's existence.

But the point isn't the same. You can keep moving the goal posts until you find something I haven't personally verified, but that doesn't change anything.

Does Tehran exist? Well, I see the name in the news, I've seen people online claiming to be from there, I can see it on a map, I can see it via google earth, and if I really wanted to I could book a plane ticket and go visit. In other words, there are multiple ways for me to verify it. Thus far in my life, whenever a current city name has been given to me and I've gone and visited it, it was there. Is it possible Tehran is a big sham and is really just a flag pole in the country we label Iran? Maybe. I'm certainly not going to claim any details about the city are true. Since I haven't been there I would always have to preface my conversations with "I've heard" or "I've read" or "I've seen on TV/internet". Is this not normal for everyone?

Neither William nor McCulloch said anything about one particular religion, let alone the extremely specific interpretation/parody of that religion which you have outlined. The purpose of a magic genie is simply to grant wishes as every child knows, which is what you've described, whereas even the Tanakh and particularly New Testament speak at length about forbearance and growth in the face of suffering and adversity.

I will concede that no particular brand of god was put forward. I was simply taking a stab at it with the god concept I'm familiar with. I'm all for starting from scratch as I've explained. Let's figure out why we even need the word 'god' for anything and go from there.

By the way, from the NT:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
John14

12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

So I'm hardly creating a 'parody'. It's called verifying a claim from a holy book.

However, you're right. Let's scrap them all (holy books) and start anew. My bad for assuming any particular definition of 'god'.

The concept of a 'physical' reality is something we have made up also. Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if you try to define that term 'physical.' I've asked this many times of many different people, and while I'm always open to learning something new so far the only definitions I've seen are along the lines of either "relating to bodies as opposed to minds" or "relating to things perceived through the senses (as opposed to the mind)"; some folk suggest that it means things accessible to science (a variant on the latter), others simply assert that everything that exists is 'physical,' a meaningless tautology. If you have some coherent definition besides variations on these I'd love to hear it.

But if not, then the concept of a 'physical' reality is essentially just a non-mental reality, and imagining that there is or could be such a thing is on face value no more plausible than imagining a mental reality. In other words, it is fallacious to think of reality as something that is a given, and god/s as unnecessary additions to the picture which require a level of proof that the presumed 'physical' reality does not; rather the question is what is the nature of reality?

So you are essentially stuck on whether our senses can be trusted? I agree that is a philosophical brain twister, but we have to start from somewhere. Perhaps everything I perceive is just a computer simulation and I'm plugged into the matrix. We can't really know, so I just have to assume my senses are useful or go crazy not trusting even myself.

Given the conundrum of defining 'physical', why in the world would I then want to go define something else which I can't perceive with my already untrustworthy senses? Why stop there? Let's define a glooberdorf which is a god making entity. Oh and how about a plinkerwap that creates glooberdorfs at random intervals.

My point is that there appears to be no need to define a god, so why do it? If we do it, why stop there?

The ancient societies you speak of often followed a 'progression' from animism (belief in individual animating spirits for tree, stream etc.) to polytheism (belief in greater spirits or 'gods' governing whole domains) and sometimes towards monotheism or duotheism (belief in one or two spirits governing all reality). Whatever you might personally think of it, the logic behind that first step of animism seems straightforward enough: We know that most of our own behaviour is governed by our choice, so observing the behaviour of animals, streams and so on the reasonable inference was of choices behind their action also.

That basic philosophical inference has been refined almost beyond recognition over the millennia, but ultimately has not been refuted: Our 'laws of nature' - first named as such in an era when most scientists assumed there was a law-giver - collate and formalize a wide range of observations as to how reality behaves, but as yet there's no scientific understanding of why it behaves this way and not some other. Presumed inherent properties of matter have not been shown to be the case, rather than properties assigned by fiat; determinism has not been proven more plausible than choice.

Ah, I see. You appear to be assuming there must be a 'why'. Why would one assume such a thing? One will only end up in a never ending progression.

Example: There must be a reason for the observable universe. Let's posit some 'thing' that gives it meaning and thus answers 'why is the universe here?'. Let's call that thing a 'god'. Ok, great. Now, why does this god exist? Hmm, ... Let's posit some 'thing' that gives this god meaning and thus answers 'why does this god exist?'. Let's call that thing a godgiver. Ok, great! Now, why dos this godgiver exist? Hmmm.... Oh my this is going to take a while.

The 'bucket' hasn't become any smaller, we've just become so used to seeing it that we've forgotten it's even there.

You've misunderstood what I mean by 'bucket'. I meant it to mean a 'thing' that explains everything we don't have a natural explanation for.

For example, some used to think lightning was created by an angry god. We've since discovered that it has to do with electrical charge. We can now create lighting at will in the lab (on a smaller scale). Thus, we have removed how lighting works from the 'god bucket'. We no longer need an angry lightning god, we can now, if we so choose, build an apparatus and flip a switch to see some lighting. We can also predict with some reasonable accuracy when lightning will appear in the sky. Meteorologists don't pray to the lightning god before the 6am weather report, they use modern understanding and some models to make an educated guess.

As to why those particular probabilities, the principle of indifference suggests that given two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities, in the absence of any reason to consider one more likely than the other they must each be supposed to have equal probability; that is, 50/50 either way. Since consciousness (mental phenomena; thought/choice) is the thing which we know most certainly to be a fact (cogito ergo sum) and does not seem to be further reducible or definable in a way that would falsify the dichotomy, the possibilities that either consciousness or non-consciousness characterize the nature of reality seem to fit the bill. But since the supposition of a non-conscious (or 'physical') reality a) involves the introduction of a new type of entity, b) introduces a new conceptual difficulty with the existence of consciousness in a non-conscious reality and c) as yet cannot not match the simplicity and scope of the consciousness hypothesis, the consciousness theory of reality would seem to have greater than 50% plausibility.

'God/s' is the English word which accurately fits that perspective of consciousness being a fundamental characteristic of reality.

I would say that is one definition of a 'god', but hardly the only one. If we take that definition, then we are all 'god' are we not? It's actually one theory I've bounced around my noggin when day dreaming about 'what ifs'. Who knows? However, I'm not about to start preaching this as truth. There could just as easily be an infinite number of gods, no gods, or something in between.

[dio9]

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?

It's so obvious ya can't see it. its as clear as the nose on your face , but you can't see that either. The earth itself is evidence that God exists. what more do you need the sun moon and Stars ?

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by benchwarmer]

But the point isn't the same. You can keep moving the goal posts until you find something I haven't personally verified, but that doesn't change anything.

Does Tehran exist? Well, I see the name in the news, I've seen people online claiming to be from there, I can see it on a map, I can see it via google earth, and if I really wanted to I could book a plane ticket and go visit. In other words, there are multiple ways for me to verify it. Thus far in my life, whenever a current city name has been given to me and I've gone and visited it, it was there. Is it possible Tehran is a big sham and is really just a flag pole in the country we label Iran? Maybe. I'm certainly not going to claim any details about the city are true. Since I haven't been there I would always have to preface my conversations with "I've heard" or "I've read" or "I've seen on TV/internet". Is this not normal for everyone?

The question then becomes 'does it matter to you personally whether GOD exists or not?"

I will concede that no particular brand of god was put forward. I was simply taking a stab at it with the god concept I'm familiar with. I'm all for starting from scratch as I've explained. Let's figure out why we even need the word 'god' for anything and go from there.

The word GOD simply refers to consciousness which is self aware, intelligent, creative and within the context of form, is limited to what it can do through the form.

In relation to the universe, the form of the universe can be the vessel itself, and can consciousness can also be further divested into the forms of the universe, such as Galaxies, Sun systems, individual planets and the life forms related to those planets.

So you are essentially stuck on whether our senses can be trusted? I agree that is a philosophical brain twister, but we have to start from somewhere. Perhaps everything I perceive is just a computer simulation and I'm plugged into the matrix. We can't really know, so I just have to assume my senses are useful or go crazy not trusting even myself.

Or you can ignore all such possibilities and simply go shopping, get involved in politics, find your place in the world, etc.

Every thing that exists does so in the mind of GOD, so yes it could be said we exist within some sort of simulation which you are 'plugged' into in the sense that you are an aspect of that overall GOD consciousness, connected to the form you presently occupy, in relation to the environment that form is within. Form within form, but always consciousness, as the essential self determining factor.

Given the conundrum of defining 'physical', why in the world would I then want to go define something else which I can't perceive with my already untrustworthy senses? Why stop there? Let's define a glooberdorf which is a god making entity. Oh and how about a plinkerwap that creates glooberdorfs at random intervals.

My point is that there appears to be no need to define a god, so why do it? If we do it, why stop there?

In defining GOD correctly one can define the self better and why the self exists within the particular simulation that it does,

In relation to the 'turtles all the way down' argument, this has been laid to rest by the 'Consciousness has always and will always exist' argument. No thing made consciousness. Consciousness made every thing. No conundrum.

Our senses can be trusted, but are not overly reliable in relation to concepts which involve ideas of GOD.

Understanding GOD as consciousness allows for one to trust their self, once the self is identified as an aspect of GOD.
This is not to say that one can trust others, even if those others belief in ideas of GOD, and especially if those ideas of GOD are in conflict and that conflict spills into the physical and causes damage.

But certainly one can learn to trust ones self.

Ah, I see. You appear to be assuming there must be a 'why'. Why would one assume such a thing? One will only end up in a never ending progression.

Example: There must be a reason for the observable universe. Let's posit some 'thing' that gives it meaning and thus answers 'why is the universe here?'. Let's call that thing a 'god'. Ok, great. Now, why does this god exist? Hmm, ... Let's posit some 'thing' that gives this god meaning and thus answers 'why does this god exist?'. Let's call that thing a godgiver. Ok, great! Now, why dos this godgiver exist? Hmmm.... Oh my this is going to take a while.

GOD exists because GOD has always existed. Things exist because GOD creates them, through a series of processes which can be visualized by observing fractals.

We exist within these things because GOD - through processes has enabled itself to divests aspects of ITS consciousness into that which has been created for that reason.

To experience.

In relation to our particular universe and consciousness within it, specific to our collective experience on earth, we are most likely here to rehabilitate from the effects of a prior experience which produced negative results to which this universe was created in order to assist with that correction process.

In this, the universe is not the primary device in which the correction process will be accomplished, but one of perhaps many devices which altogether will do the job.

Thus we are not here forever (or as long as the universe exists)- although I would say that even if we were, the universe could function as the main device in which to assist us with the correction. But that's a long, long road, and one which could be traveled a fair distance as a means of avoiding the correction process rather than embracing it.

You've misunderstood what I mean by 'bucket'. I meant it to mean a 'thing' that explains everything we don't have a natural explanation for.

For example, some used to think lightning was created by an angry god. We've since discovered that it has to do with electrical charge. We can now create lighting at will in the lab (on a smaller scale). Thus, we have removed how lighting works from the 'god bucket'. We no longer need an angry lightning god, we can now, if we so choose, build an apparatus and flip a switch to see some lighting. We can also predict with some reasonable accuracy when lightning will appear in the sky. Meteorologists don't pray to the lightning god before the 6am weather report, they use modern understanding and some models to make an educated guess.

Of itself, modern thinking in relation to scientific discovery of itself is highly unlikely to think of the universe as something created within the mind of a GOD.
Indeed, science is being used right now to figure out ways of prolonging ones existence within this universe, to cheat death as it were.

There is no doubt in my mind that the elite are investing a lot of wealth into this idea, because they don't want to die and lose all they have accumulated. I am not so sure they have thought it through, but perhaps they know that it is possible there is more to life after death and they want to avoid any repercussions in relation to how they acquired such immense wealth off the backs of the majority of commoners to whom they had no regard for in relation to the regard they had for themselves.

I think they will eventually succeed in prolonging their existence in this universe indefinitely, and to be honest, I think they deserve all that is coming to them in relation to that.

Meanwhile there are other places in the mind of GOD which are better suited for the continuing process of reintegration and more fun for that.

I would say that is one definition of a 'god', but hardly the only one. If we take that definition, then we are all 'god' are we not? It's actually one theory I've bounced around my noggin when day dreaming about 'what ifs'. Who knows? However, I'm not about to start preaching this as truth. There could just as easily be an infinite number of gods, no gods, or something in between.

There is one GOD in an uncountable number of situations, your and mine being 2 such situations.

Even in relation to those elitists who might actually find a way to cheat death, and continue on indefinitely in this universe, they are still aspects of GOD who choose that path for the reasons that they did. They won't be forever lost to that understanding.

[Danmark]

[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.

There's no evidence this has EVER happened. All studies show prayer has zero effect.

2) Christians would clearly be better off and better protected than all other groups.

... and as you imply, there is no evidence of this either. [/quote]

3) Direct evidence of this god's existence.

None of that either. So... there's no evidence of God. However, that has zero impact on believers because their faith is not based on reason, but on what they have been taught. Racist beliefs are analogous in their resistance to change.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As for 'a God' in general? Obviously nothing in the realm of laboratory science.

I agree, the belief in a 'god' in general cannot be proved. However, when it comes to some specific 'god,' one which has an alleged god inspired scripture to support it, this 'god' can actually be disproved if the alleged perfect 'god's word' is shown to be fallible, inconsistent, or contrary to what we observe.

Thus the 'god' portrayed in the NT of the Bible has been thoroughly disproved repeatedly. One of the easiest examples of this is the failure of Jesus to return almost 2000 years ago. Naturally, the believers cannot accept this so they take phrases like "this generation" and "those standing here" and stretch, mangle, and turn them upside down to avoid their plain meaning.

[Kenisaw]

[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?

Have you personally verified who your grandparents are, or do you rely on the anecdotal claims of your parents?

That's a different question. We've gone from existing to verifying they are what they say they are.

Then have you personally verified that places like Tehran and Pyongyang exist? The point is the same either way: For 99% of the things we accept as true, whether of existence or more specific details, our personal verification doesn't even enter the question. Therefore it seems rather strange and suspicious how frequently that is put forth as the #1 criteria in the case of god's existence.

And the counter point to that, which has been given to you in other threads, is that the existence of gods is a lot more extraordinary than the existence of a city on planet Earth. I dare say we all have experiences of cities, and know they exist. I think you can connect the dots from there as to why gods are not comparable...

[Mithrae]

Then have you personally verified that places like Tehran and Pyongyang exist? The point is the same either way: For 99% of the things we accept as true, whether of existence or more specific details, our personal verification doesn't even enter the question. Therefore it seems rather strange and suspicious how frequently that is put forth as the #1 criteria in the case of god's existence.

And the counter point to that, which has been given to you in other threads, is that the existence of gods is a lot more extraordinary than the existence of a city on planet Earth. I dare say we all have experiences of cities, and know they exist. I think you can connect the dots from there as to why gods are not comparable...

Have you personally verified or had any experience of the construction of massive monuments with bronze age river-valley technologies, or young generals' conquest of half the known world in less than a decade, or systematic eradication of entire peoples and cultures? How about black holes, anti-matter, dark matter, quantum superpositions, or the fact that all the solid matter you come into contact with is composed of mostly empty space?

Of course once you have decided to proceed from an assumption that it is "extraordinary" to consider the prospect of the materialist/physicalist worldview being incorrect, I suppose that pretty much anything whatsoever can be granted a pass as not really all that extraordinary except that one case of special pleading for which we absolutely must have personal verification

[Kenisaw]

Then have you personally verified that places like Tehran and Pyongyang exist? The point is the same either way: For 99% of the things we accept as true, whether of existence or more specific details, our personal verification doesn't even enter the question. Therefore it seems rather strange and suspicious how frequently that is put forth as the #1 criteria in the case of god's existence.

And the counter point to that, which has been given to you in other threads, is that the existence of gods is a lot more extraordinary than the existence of a city on planet Earth. I dare say we all have experiences of cities, and know they exist. I think you can connect the dots from there as to why gods are not comparable...

Have you personally verified or had any experience of the construction of massive monuments with bronze age river-valley technologies, or young generals' conquest of half the known world in less than a decade, or systematic eradication of entire peoples and cultures? How about black holes, anti-matter, dark matter, quantum superpositions, or the fact that all the solid matter you come into contact with is composed of mostly empty space?

Of course once you have decided to proceed from an assumption that it is "extraordinary" to consider the prospect of the materialist/physicalist worldview being incorrect, I suppose that pretty much anything whatsoever can be granted a pass as not really all that extraordinary except that one case of special pleading for which we absolutely must have personal verification

Is there evidence for all those things? Yes.

Evidence for gods? No.

Why that difference keeps escaping the attention of some at this website is befuddling to me.