What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:09 am

William wrote: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.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:10 am

[Replying to post 130 by Mithrae]

"You can't make a thesis on a negative." Is the correct form you are thinking of... it is an academic standard, not any more real than that. We prove things all the time in the negative.

For example

You can't write a dissertation on the non-existence of unicorns, but you can prove they don't exist.
God is even easier.

Notice, the proofs I presented are quite positive. No wonder you ignored them!

marco · Post by **marco** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:57 am

William wrote: [Replying to post 120 by marco]

So no - you don't have an answer as to what would constitute evidence that God does exist.

Thanks for dedicating your long post to me, with quotes not mine.

As for your brief summary, above, of my position, it may be relevant to point out that I said:
"an external being would cause my mind to be convinced by indubitable evidence."

So I am saying that it is of course possible for evidence to appear that would persuade. I would be its passive recipient.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:19 am

William wrote: Many atheists insist that if GOD exists, then they have the right to demand 'evidence' that this is the case.
(Here's the kicker)
No atheist can say what scientific evidence would convince them GOD exists.

Does it need to be any more specific than "scientific evidence?" Scientific evidence would convince me that God exists, as opposed to testimonies or circumstantial evidence.

KenRU · Post by **KenRU** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:14 pm

William wrote: Many atheists insist that if GOD exists, then they have the right to demand 'evidence' that this is the case.
(Here's the kicker)
No atheist can say what scientific evidence would convince them GOD exists.

How about a very simple answer? I (and others I imagine) would settle for just being witnessing (today) some of the many "miracles" and interventions that god and Jesus performed (for all to see) back in the OT days.

A speaking ass, talking snake, unexplained darkness, water made blood, parting of rivers or seas, sun and moon standing still - just to name a few - would constitute evidence.

These events would pretty much toss science out the window and would (for me at least) be evidence of the existence of a deity.

As far as I see it, it is not an unreasonable criteria given what god is purported to have done (in the first place) in the holy book inspired by his actions anyway.

-all the best

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:39 pm

I found two pieces of burnt toast this morning.

Is this evidence of Superman, flying in undetected and blasting my bread with heat vision?

Is this evidence of a toaster setting poorly chosen or gone awry?

The question is subject to the nature of evidence, and the way we interpret it, coupled with our biases.

Which is why I'm revolting against the entirety of the thread.

How about... You make claim X and I don't care why you think that. Instead I ask you to simply tell me/show me how to verify what you're saying is the conclusion of said verification process.

PS. Expounding on all the things we don't understand is not a pathway to new understanding.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:03 pm

[Replying to post 128 by Danmark]

What appears to your mind to be a confusing, contradictory melange of words will not appear to the minds of other readers, the same way.

Nor does my post ignore the many examples that have been given of supposed evidence that would show there is a god. Specifically my post demonstrates why those things are not very good examples of evidence which can be scientifically examined. I simply took some of those examples and showed them to be useless in that context. I note that you do not give any example or try to refute my assertions. Perhaps it has everything to do with your inability to comprehend what I have said?

Never to mind. Others will.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:08 pm

[Replying to post 129 by Willum]

I see you are looking for a physical presence which can be established as 'GOD'.

As I stated in post 9;

Specify what is meant by 'GOD' and then ask the question.

Q: "What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

The answers will be focused upon the particular ideas of what GOD is and so will vary.

Thus, you have specified, and thus you have concluded that you now KNOW that your particular idea of GOD does not exist.

Well done!

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:14 pm

[Replying to post 9 by William]

Ah, well, you'd need to find evidence of cohesiveness and communications indicative of intelligence.

If you are aware of any I am unaware of, I'd love to see it. Otherwise you have a belief that doesn't matter one way or the other.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:28 pm

[Replying to post 132 by marco]

Thanks for dedicating your long post to me, with quotes not mine.

No Problem. The thrust of my post was inspired by your own, but I thought it more pertinent to focus on the argument of evidence of GOD, rather than go down the track of focusing upon one idea of GOD which is oh-so-popular - because, well you know - the old "argumentum ad numerum".

I mean - sure - if you want to just focus on that idea of GOD, then by all means go for it. But don't mind me if I include your posts as part of my replies, even that my replies won't be focused upon that particular idea of GOD, it is still worth pointing out the differences.

We don't need to debate on many ideas of GOD. What is required is coming to a consensus as to the best idea of GOD overall.

The all inclusive idea of GOD.

â™¦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

As for your brief summary, above, of my position, it may be relevant to point out that I said:
"an external being would cause my mind to be convinced by indubitable evidence."

So I am saying that it is of course possible for evidence to appear that would persuade. I would be its passive recipient.

Okay then. I can work with that if you are keen.

Please expand on this idea of being a 'passive recipient' and give examples of where this actually is the case for you in relation to anything.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:35 pm

[Replying to post 133 by Bust Nak]

Does it need to be any more specific than "scientific evidence?"

Under the circumstances - how much more specific can it be, than scientific evidence?

All that is required is for anyone to give some examples of evidence which can be examined by scientific process in relation to the question;

Q: What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Scientific evidence would convince me that God exists, as opposed to testimonies or circumstantial evidence.

Yes. I said as much in my post. So then, what are some examples of scientific evidence would convince you that God exists? Please share with the group!

Debating Christianity and Religion