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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 160 by Inigo Montoya]

Yup, essentially the same as all other arguments, start out with a = a, go through a series of arguments where you disguise a step including 1/0, or set a definition in there - that necessitates God.

Universalism is something like that, where God = the universe and vice versa

I remember being fascinated by the concept for a few weeks in high school.

[Bust Nak]

The opportunity to know my particular idea can be found in my members notes.

Specifically in these two threads...

Still not all that clear if your god is deistic or theistic.

Please explain how this can be done.

I already gave you an example - the lab experiment I mentioned in my last post.

In observing nature through the event of life on earth, is there evidence of this 'super powerful personal being who cares about humanity'?

No. Just to be clear, you meant empirical evidence, right?

In observing nature through the event of life on earth, is there evidence of this 'super powerful personal being who cares about humanity' which can be scientifically verified?

No. This is giving me second thoughts on whether you actually meant empirical evidence or not in your last question.

Thus the question is:
What are fruits?

Thus the example related to answering the question is:
"Fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food;"

Thus the evidence is:
That which fits the description in the example, and is produced/exhibited as actual physical evidence of the example.

How is "fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food" an example? It is the description of fruit, not an example at all.

It is not a case of forgetfulness. It is a case of not seeing a need in repeating myself to every poster. Call it an attempt at being efficient.

You say that yet you did repeat yourself, you asked me twice what my answer was. That does not sound like the actions of someone who remembered but didn't want to repeat himself. Not only did you repeat yourself, you caused me to repeat my answer - that's the very opposite of being efficient.

Point being, I think it better to reply to posters who have obviously put thought into their replies and their replies are fleshed out as a necessity to this subject. Your replies in contrast, are single words, or perhaps a line or two.

If that was the point then you have asked me to expand on my answer instead. Maybe ask me new questions based on what my one line answer, questions such as, "can you give me an example?"

Your 'fruit' analogy was worth showing what the differences are between examples and actual evidence, only you appear to think the evidence is in the speaking of the fruit and I say the speaking of the fruit is more the example, and the evidence is the showing of the fruit.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. "An apple" does not answer the question of "what is a fruit," nor would it be a good answer to the question "what constitute evidence that fruits exist" because it is woefully incomplete, why wouldn't an orange count as evidence?

In that light my questions regarding showing of the evidence of GOD, pertain not only to my own idea of what GOD is, but even to your own idea of what GOD is...

Your idea of what GOD is, as an example is:

A super powerful personal being who cares about humanity.

In relation to that example, you also say that such can be shown/verified through scientific.

So - in effect - you have given an example of the fruit, but where have you shown the fruit to be real?

No where, because I was not asked to... Where exactly is this going?

"A super powerful personal being who cares about humanity" doesn't even imply that such a being can be shown through scientific process, to exist.

Not my problem. I am not the one trying to show that "a super powerful personal being who cares about humanity" exist through scientific process now, am I?

But all that this implies is that in order for you to receive the same, you would have to become a Christian first. Then you will be granted the insight.

I will become one, when it can be demonstrated scientifically that God exists. Alternative, a personal revelation would convert me. Note the difference between things that would convince me God exists, and things that constitute evidence that God exists - in other words, a personal revelation is not evidence.

But that's all moot, since whether I am a Christian or not, whether I am granted insight or not, is irrelevant to the experiment. Indeed, I would make a good candidate for the control group.

[William]

[Replying to post 159 by Willum]

Maybe it just me, but Pantheism does not prove God anyore than the OP.

Certainly the OP does not prove God. The OP asks a question. Pantheism Provides the best answer in relation to the question.

[Replying to post 160 by Inigo Montoya]

God is essentially consciousness. The totality of human consciousness.

Consciousness exists, therefore God exists.

That's what I'm getting anyhow.

All Consciousness. Not just human consciousness.

[Replying to post 162 by Bust Nak]

How is "fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food" an example? It is the description of fruit, not an example at all.

Please follow the conversation.

In post 149 you said;

"What would constitute evidence..." and "what are some examples..." are different questions.

In Post 151 I replied:

Are you playing the schematics game here? How is one to say what would constitute evidence if one is not going to supply examples?

In post 155 you replied:

By saying exactly what constitute evidence, consider the following questions: What are fruits - the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food; and what are some example of fruits - apples and oranges.

You were trying to show the difference between supplying examples and showing evidence?

I replied:

Thus the question is:
What are fruits?

Thus the example related to answering the question is:
"Fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food;"

Thus the evidence is:
That which fits the description in the example, and is produced/exhibited as actual physical evidence of the example.

To which you now say:

How is "fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food" an example? It is the description of fruit, not an example at all.

Are you playing the schematics game here?

The 'examples' are related to the OP question.

Do you have some examples or not?

Or if you prefer:

"What would describe evidence that God does exist?"

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 163 by William]


All consciousness, not just human consciousness. Ok.

So tell me again what anyone can know or learn from renaming "all consciousness" to "God."

Are you doing anything more complicated than calling something that exists by a different name?

[Bust Nak]

Please follow the conversation.

In post 149 you said;

"What would constitute evidence..." and "what are some examples..." are different questions.

In Post 151 I replied:

Are you playing the schematics game here? How is one to say what would constitute evidence if one is not going to supply examples?

In post 155 you replied:

By saying exactly what constitute evidence, consider the following questions: What are fruits - the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food; and what are some example of fruits - apples and oranges.

You were trying to show the difference between supplying examples and showing evidence?

No, I was trying to show the difference between supplying examples and answering the question "what constitute evidence..."

I replied:

Thus the question is:
What are fruits?

Thus the example related to answering the question is:
"Fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food;"

Thus the evidence is:
That which fits the description in the example, and is produced/exhibited as actual physical evidence of the example.

To which you now say:

How is "fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food" an example? It is the description of fruit, not an example at all.

Are you playing the schematics game here?

No. Are you? Perhaps English isn't your first language and the difference is not clear in your native language?

I am pointing out "fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food" is the description of fruit, not an example of fruit. Why the ? Do you disagree, or simply don't understand the difference between a direct answer and an example? Try the following:

A number that is divisible only by itself and 1 is a prime number; 5 is an example of a prime number. Do you think someone would be satisfied by the respond "5" when he asks you what is a prime number?


The low-level software that supports a computer's basic functions is an operation system; windows is an example of an operation system. Do you think someone would be satisfied by the respond "windows" when he asks you what is an operating system?

The 'examples' are related to the OP question.

Do you have some examples or not?

Yes, I gave you one example of an experiment you can do to demonstrate scientifically the existence of the Christian God.

"What would describe evidence that God does exist?"

Asked and answered: "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." Ask new questions if you want something more from me. Repeating old questions will just get you old answers. What exactly are you expecting from me that I am not fulfilling?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 165 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
"What would describe evidence that God does exist?"

Yes, I gave you one example of an experiment you can do to demonstrate scientifically the existence of the Christian God.

Asked and answered: "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." Ask new questions if you want something more from me. Repeating old questions will just get you old answers. What exactly are you expecting from me that I am not fulfilling?

The "Christian-God or Trinity-God", though it is an incorrect notion, being a myth might be tested in a lab, maybe or maybe not.
Quran gives a truthful concept that One-True-god is only attributive, neither a physical being/object nor a spirit. All physical objects and spirits are a creation of One-True-God, therefore, He cannot be tested in a lab. As attributes in absolutes are beyond the domain of the Physics. Right, please?
Regards

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 166 by paarsurrey1]

If this god can interact with the physical world, then he can be detected in a lab. The only undetectable kind of gods are those who have no ability to change the physical world.

The One-True-God of the Quran sounds like he can interact with the physical world, if so then he is not beyond the realm of science. Now he might want to hide from us by refraining from interacting with our world when scientists are all set up with an experiment, but whether he wants to be found by science or not is a different question as to whether science can detect him if God wants to be found. Can you expand on what you meant by "only attributive?"

[Peter]

A God proven to exist becomes nothing but a wizard. Gods require faith (hope) to exist in the mind.

[William]

[Replying to post 165 by Bust Nak]

Q: What would describe evidence that God does exist?

Asked and answered: "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." Ask new questions if you want something more from me. Repeating old questions will just get you old answers. What exactly are you expecting from me that I am not fulfilling?

This is a new question.

Q: What would describe evidence that God does exist?

The old question was:

Q: What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

It appears clear enough that the OP question was asking for examples as to what would constitute evidence [Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment] for the existence of GOD.

If that is NOT the case, one would think that Member McCulloch would have already posted to say so.

[William]

[Replying to post 166 by paarsurrey1]

If this god can interact with the physical world, then he can be detected in a lab. The only undetectable kind of gods are those who have no ability to change the physical world.

The One-True-God of the Quran sounds like he can interact with the physical world, if so then he is not beyond the realm of science. Now he might want to hide from us by refraining from interacting with our world when scientists are all set up with an experiment, but whether he wants to be found by science or not is a different question as to whether science can detect him if God wants to be found. Can you expand on what you meant by "only attributive?"

And then - those are but two examples as to the ideas of what GOD is.
There are of course, many more.