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]

I reject dualism simply on philosophical grounds, since two completely distinct types of substance should have no way of interacting; if they can interact, they can't really be dualistic.

Why? Dualism is simply the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided. The key here is "conceptually."

Can you demonstrate that "distinct types of substances should have no way of interacting?"
What you you even mean by this? Oxygen and Hydrogen are distinct types of substances. This is 'elemental.' They certainly interact. They can, together, form water.

[Mithrae]

I reject dualism simply on philosophical grounds, since two completely distinct types of substance should have no way of interacting; if they can interact, they can't really be dualistic.

Why? Dualism is simply the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided. The key here is "conceptually."

Can you demonstrate that "distinct types of substances should have no way of interacting?"
What you you even mean by this? Oxygen and Hydrogen are distinct types of substances. This is 'elemental.' They certainly interact. They can, together, form water.

Oxygen and hydrogen share properties of extension/space, mass, electromagnetic charge and so on. They're simply different configurations of the same substances in the form of protons, neutrons and electrons. Things get a little more difficult to picture when we talk for example about dark matter; it still interacts with our baryonic matter, but only through gravitation, so there might even be several times as much dark matter occupying the same space as our 'normal' matter without any noticeable interaction. By contrast mind-body dualism supposes that while the body is a spatial entity, the mind does not have even that property. "Dualism is closely associated with the thought of René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance." It is impossible to even conceive how an entity which does not exist in space/is not composed of a spatial substance, could interact with the properties of a spatial entity. The non-spatial thing could never even be said to have any contact with the spatial thing, since contact is a spatial reference - and that's just the first problem!

This is obviously also a problem for the concept of 'God' as a distinct and non-spatial entity, so I'm amazed that it's not brought up more often in these parts

I'm talking about substance dualism here of course; things like night/day or positive/negative charges could be said to be 'dualistic' in reference to the presence or absence of one particular property in otherwise-similar entities.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 62 by Mithrae]

This is obviously also a problem for the concept of 'God' as a distinct and non-spatial entity, so I'm amazed that it's not brought up more often in these parts.

I love it, you make up an assumption, and say God doesn't play by those rules, so you can claim he exists.

Awesome! -because it is the only way for such a creature to exist?

To me, requiring an irrational assumption, to cover an irrational assumption (God), to cover irrational claims about God (resurrection) and to support impossible claims about his legacy (the Flood), would be clear evidence that such a creature is a desperate fantasy.

But no so Judeo-Christianity - why?

Then you compound this already thin line of reasoning to say that, since concepts exist, God must exist.

There is something wrong with this world view, that it would seem to me, could be rapidly corrected.

[dio9]

[Replying to McCulloch]

God is evident as inspiration the muse of the poets .

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to McCulloch]

God is evident as inspiration the muse of the poets .

Moderator Comment
Please refrain from the use of one liners.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Those two concepts are mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive.

Incorrect. Those two concepts are a true dilemma, which means they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

The nonsensical ramblings of a drugged-up degenerate are fundamentally understandable - they are the result of drug.

Unfortunately when it comes to explaining the nature of reality as a whole, theism is a far more common explanation than any alternative both historically and into the 21st century. So if I were you I probably wouldn't rest my case on that argument

I think you'll find that theism is actually the fall back position, when the usual explanation is found lacking.

Trees respond to their environment. Or we could go with bacteria if you prefer, which have more easily-recognized sensory organs and more actively interact with their environments. The thing is that as recognizable structural similarities diminish, our recognition of behavioural similarities necessarily decreases also: We find it much harder to imagine the consciousness of a fish than a dog. Some folk wouldn't attribute consciousness to Data as it is, and if he were less humanoid we'd be even less inclined to do so.

That changes nothing, you are judging by behavioral similarities not by structure given that you would accept that Data is conscious.

What empirical evidence is there?

The usual brain studies apply.

However we're then still left with the question - which has been the question all along, and which both you and everyone else have still failed to provide any coherent evidence regarding - whether it is more reasonable to reinterpret the 'mental' concept and imagine a materialist reality, or more reasonable to reinterpret the 'physical' concept and imagine an idealist reality.

Does it matter? it's not a very interesting question, the usual argument for and against Platonic idealism apply here.

I have argued that the latter is more reasonable, because it
A > introduces fewer new assumptions, in that we know our minds and thoughts exist...

But you don't know that.

B > poses fewer new conceptual difficulties in explaining how consciousness exists in a non-conscious universe

Granted, but my alternative poses fewer new conceptual difficulties in explaining how non-consciousness exists in a conscious universe.

C > provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework, in that alongside biological evolution thoughts are the only thing we know which can explain complexity from simpler origins.

You are appealing to the external world again. You don't know any of this.

Even ignoring the demonstrated problems with your presuppositionalism, the four points which you stated still would not change this assessment that idealism (and hence by implication panentheism) is the more reasonable way of 'understanding' or imagining reality. Nor do any of the other responses in this thread or others.

How is it more reasonable?

[William]

What empirical evidence is there?

The usual brain studies apply.

Brain studies sure are interesting and have produced data of evidence that consciousness and the brain are congruent.
That data of evidence can be taken to mean that the brain created consciousness (Materialism) or that consciousness uses the brain (Panentheism)
Empirical evidence therefore is simply viewing objective data and coming to a subjective agreement regarding the interpretation of that data. The subjective agreement can be taken one way or the other. Both are reasonable in that context.

I have argued that the latter is more reasonable, because it
A > introduces fewer new assumptions, in that we know our minds and thoughts exist...

But you don't know that.

Certainly we do at the time, in the moment. If one doesn't accept that ones mind and thoughts exist, how is one able to accept the brain exists, or that the external exists?

One relies on mind and thoughts to work with the external data in assessing it.
The expression "Consciousness is emergent of the brain" is a construct of the mind and the thoughts congruent and if they don't exist, how is it that the expression and accompanying beliefs exist? One cannot express an opinion about an observation (iow 'an interpretation') if ones thoughts and mind do not exist.
So - that would be a good indication they they do indeed exist.

B > poses fewer new conceptual difficulties in explaining how consciousness exists in a non-conscious universe

Granted, but my alternative poses fewer new conceptual difficulties in explaining how non-consciousness exists in a conscious universe.

Makes no difference to pantheism/panentheism. Non consciousness is non existent in that 'things' are form in which consciousness experiences through. We observe a Galaxy or a planet and we see no sign of it being conscious, but what are we looking for as a sign? Some wriggly movement? Something which identifies intelligence?

We can at least observe such movements in relation to the Earth and the biological forms therein, and from that it can be deduced that the planet itself is the form of a conscious entity and explains why biological life forms exist. This conclusion in itself does not necessitate ignoring the overall theory of biological evolution.

C > provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework, in that alongside biological evolution thoughts are the only thing we know which can explain complexity from simpler origins.

You are appealing to the external world again. You don't know any of this.

The internal definitely has something to do with the external and visa versa. The are reflections of each other, and perhaps more to the point, they are the same thing presented differently.
We can look at the universe as it presently is and see therein and expression of an aspect of GOD. We can also understand that because of the movement of time-space that the expression is ever changing and that a trillion years from now will not look the same as it presently does to us, here within it - experiencing it from the position of being within a biological form, on a tiny speck of dust suspended in a beam of Sol-light.

Even ignoring the demonstrated problems with your presuppositionalism, the four points which you stated still would not change this assessment that idealism (and hence by implication panentheism) is the more reasonable way of 'understanding' or imagining reality. Nor do any of the other responses in this thread or others.

How is materialism more reasonable than Intelligent Design? I would argue that it is less reasonable because it has to insist that there is no intelligence involved in the process of biological evolution, and this plainly isn't the case. Materialism as a position and those who believe in it, have to insist that there is no evidence of intelligence therein which itself requires having to ignore the obvious intelligence involved in that process. Otherwise materialism would cease to be a (so-believed) 'reasonable argument' relevant to truthfulness.

There are no immediate demonstrable problems with the pantheist position because intelligence is specifically evident in the process of biological evolution. Even in claiming that the Earth is a conscious self aware intelligent creative entity is not going to extremes as an explanation of how the evidence of biological evolution came to become a reality on the planet.

From there it is simply a matter of a kind of reverse engineering. We know that biological evolution is an intelligent process, we know that it is reasonable to understand as a way of explanation, that the Earth is the form of a living entity , so we can assume that the Galaxies are also forms of living entities , and by that, the universe is also .

It is a simplicity associated with a complexity which is absent from the materialist world view.
Sure, materialists do often enough claim that their position is more simple because it does away with the necessity of Intelligent Design (and the implications therein) but its major flaw is that it has to ignore intelligence involved with the process of biological evolution as well as ignore the fact that it is consciousness which is allowing them the ability to argue about it in the first place. They try to get around that by claiming consciousness is an 'illusion of self' create by the brain, but that's Pandora's box right there.

I suspect the agenda of many of those who are very outspoken materialists, because - while I understand that it is in some way a reaction to the problem of evil, that in itself doesn't explain the vehemence of materialists in outright denial of Intelligent Design and I think that may well have something to do with competition for human resource. All said and done, materialism isn't required to behold to any specific morality and lines are easily blurred justifying actions which can circumnavigate around any possible agenda an Intelligent Designer might otherwise have.

Yes. That is something to consider. If Intelligent Design is the case, then chances are the Designer(s) have a reason for doing so, and those reasons may not align with materialism/materialistic agendas.

So - in my mind, it is worthwhile being cautious in regard to arguments coming from materialistic world views.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 67 by William]

Certainly existential logic is a very interesting means to proof, and definitely proof of something.

But it is not saying, "Hi God, how are you today?"
"Fine William, how are you? Don't go down Fifth and Main today there'll be some freak squalls."
"Thanks God! Is there anything I can do for you?"
"Just be fruitful and multiply."

Now how difficult would that be?

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by William]

Certainly existential logic is a very interesting means to proof, and definitely proof of something.

But it is not saying, "Hi God, how are you today?"
"Fine William, how are you? Don't go down Fifth and Main today there'll be some freak squalls."
"Thanks God! Is there anything I can do for you?"
"Just be fruitful and multiply."

Now how difficult would that be?

Your post invoked a particular memory of a time before I eventually came to the knowledge that the Earth was the form used by an Entity.

At that time I still regarded myself as something of a Christian, (I no longer went to Church though) and thus I had the idea of GOD which was more the 'sky-daddy' in that he watched over me from a position above.

I was on a bit of a mission which had a lot to do with testing my faith - walking the talk as the saying goes.

So anyway, I had done a lot of walking the previous day, and eventually managed to catch a few rides which got me to a city late in the night/early in the morning, and found refuge in a church after finding the key to a back entrance, and using hymn books and bibles for my pillow and a pew for my bed, managed to get a bit of shut eye.
When I awoke I was quite hungry but as part of my mission involved not taking any money with me, I had no way to get food so I decided to carry on.
Not knowing the geography of the city I was in, I 'followed my nose' and found myself eventually at the sea shore, where I found a 20 cent piece. I thought at the time it wasn't enough to buy food but it might come in handy for helping me make a decision as to which way I should go when I came to any 'fork in the road.'

Eventually I found the road leading out of the city and after many miles of walking got to the open road zone where I could then try hitching a ride.

I don't like to stand and wait while hitching as I prefer to walk, but sometimes this means vehicles cannot stop to pick you up, even if they wanted to.

Anyway I eventually came to a T intersection so I got out my 20 cents and flipped to see what direction GOD wanted me to go next. Thus the decision was made for me.

No sooner had I taken the road the coin indicated, I got a ride, but it was only a mile or so the guy was going, and when he dropped me off, I noticed across the road a sign that read 'Kiwi fruit 20 cents a kilo.'

I can tell you that fruit tasted like heaven, as the saying goes.

So yes - GOD is actively participating in my every move, but not so much in the way of giving some advice like "Don't go down Fifth and Main today there'll be some freak squalls." but more in relation to serendipity and synchronicity, and also GOD has not changed but my understanding of IT has - because of and since those days on the road, which is to say, it was the Earth Entity interacting with me through events which introduced me to experiences and associated concepts. EE was 'sky-daddy' in those days. Same being, different realization.

"Thanks God! Is there anything I can do for you?"
"Just be fruitful and multiply."

Now how difficult would that be?

Well the advise 'be fruitful and multiply' simply means 'support what EE is doing. How difficult is that? What you are asking of course, is how difficult is it for GOD to prove itself to you. (or anyone else for that matter) and my answer can only be from personal experience and in that it wasn't about GOD proving Itself to me (because I believed GOD existed anyway,) It was a matter of me proving myself to GOD...which I understood then to be - me walking the talk.

How difficult was that? Pretty difficult but fun and eye-opening. It took me to a place where no one and no thing could ever convince me GOD does not exist.

[Bust Nak]

Brain studies sure are interesting and have produced data of evidence that consciousness and the brain are congruent.

Well there you go. That's enough to dismiss dualism.

If one doesn't accept that ones mind and thoughts exist, how is one able to accept the brain exists, or that the external exists?

Exactly my point - you just accept it, you don't know it.

One cannot express an opinion about an observation (iow 'an interpretation') if ones thoughts and mind do not exist.
So - that would be a good indication they they do indeed exist.

That's only enough to know that one mind exist.

Makes no difference to pantheism/panentheism. Non consciousness is non existent in that 'things' are form in which consciousness experiences through. We observe a Galaxy or a planet and we see no sign of it being conscious, but what are we looking for as a sign? Some wriggly movement? Something which identifies intelligence?

We can at least observe such movements in relation to the Earth and the biological forms therein, and from that it can be deduced that the planet itself is the form of a conscious entity and explains why biological life forms exist. This conclusion in itself does not necessitate ignoring the overall theory of biological evolution.

That makes no difference to materialism/naturalism either, and that was my point.

The internal definitely has something to do with the external and visa versa. The are reflections of each other, and perhaps more to the point, they are the same thing presented differently.

But you don't even know there is an "external" at all.

We can look at the universe as it presently is...

No, you can't, you can only experience in your own mind, what you believe to be the external universe. Solipsism is inescapable.

How is materialism more reasonable than Intelligent Design?

Materialism makes the fewest assumptions. Offers answer that are objective and variable.

I would argue that it is less reasonable because it has to insist that there is no intelligence involved in the process of biological evolution...

You'll get nowhere with this. Bringing up creationism is almost an automatic fail.