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?

[Bust Nak]

If personal interpretation never entered into it, theists and atheists would not mention how they interpret the evidence and we could all just accept the evidence without interpreting what the evidence was showing in relation to personal bias.

Ideally, sure. Theists have a lot to learn from us. We don't mention how we interpret the evidence and we just accept the evidence without interpreting what the evidence was showing in relation to personal bias.

Science doesn't interpret itself but that doesn't mean you should make up your personal meaning.

In what way would this constitute evidence that GOD exists?

God is helping Christians get the correct answer.

I don't see it myself, but short of actually setting such an experiment up and seeing what results can be forthcoming - if the results determined that Christians fared no better or worse than any other group, that in itself would not constitute evidence that GOD does NOT exist.

But that wasn't what this topic is about. It's about evidence that God does exist.

I find the evidence of life forms on the planet enough therein to constitute that GOD exists.

That's not good enough for the rest of us I am afraid.

[Inigo Montoya]

What would constitute evidence apples exist?

Whatever you come up with to that question, is there some reason the same can't be applied to this God?

What's that, you say? It's immaterial? Timeless? Spaceless? Transcendent yet immanent? Invisible?

Ah, well then I suppose a story will have to do.

[William]

[Replying to post 181 by Bust Nak]

Ideally, sure. Theists have a lot to learn from us. We don't mention how we interpret the evidence and we just accept the evidence without interpreting what the evidence was showing in relation to personal bias.

That gave me a chuckle. Your statement clearly claims that atheists are not bias and do not interpret the evidence through any filters involving bias.

I would say that this might be the case for those who remain within the neutral default position of having no beliefs in any GODs existing but once information comes through this changes into believing that no GODs exist, a different position, and with it comes accompanying bias and interpretation of the evidence.

It is silly of you to attempt to suggest that one side has bias and interprets the evidence based upon the bias while the other side does not.

Science doesn't interpret itself but that doesn't mean you should make up your personal meaning.

My subjective experience is the only personal meaning I take as a given, and in that I don't 'try and make up' anything. In relation to biological evolution I do not make up that the process is an intelligent mindful one. The evidence of this is too apparent to deny.

God is helping Christians get the correct answer.

this assumes that GOD would only help those who call themselves Christians. Why would a scientist doing the experiment decide that GOD would only help Christians?
Why would a scientist assume GOD would consent to such a test in the first place, when the evidence for GOD exists within the creation?

There are lots of assumptions in regard to the 'test' which need to be addressed before one can successfully claim to have found a way to test for GODs existence in a scientific manner.

But that wasn't what this topic is about. It's about evidence that God does exist.

You would have to ask member McCulloch. It has been debated that the OP is unclear. McCulloch has been invited to clarify what he was asking, but so far has ignored that.

I think the thread is about giving examples as to what would be acceptable as anything which could recognizably constitute empirical evidence that GOD exists, and have given my answer on that.

I find the evidence of life forms on the planet enough therein to constitute that GOD exists.

That's not good enough for the rest of us I am afraid.

By 'the rest of us' I can assume you mean strong atheists?

So what? How does that say anything other than there are a group of individual who have access to the same evidence but because they are atheists they have to filter the same data through that bias and as a result "That's not good enough for the rest of us" is expressed.

What has that got to do with anything? It shows that your claim that "we just accept the evidence without interpreting what the evidence was showing in relation to personal bias." is a fallacy.

[rickmeist]

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?

I would pray "Dear God, please lift up that pencil on the table one foot in the air and then immediately place it back down on the table. Amen" Now THAT is evidence. If it happened then oh yes - I would be a believer!

[Rufus21]

I find the evidence of life forms on the planet enough therein to constitute that GOD exists.

That's not good enough for the rest of us I am afraid.

How does that say anything other than there are a group of individual who have access to the same evidence but because they are atheists they have to filter the same data through that bias...

I don't understand what you mean by "filter" and "bias" here. If we accept that there are life forms on other planets without interpreting anything from it or seeing it through a biased viewpoint, god never comes into the discussion. There are life forms on other planets. End of story. It is exactly what science would predict. Trying to shoehorn god into the situation just adds an unnecessary layer of abstraction for the purposes of supporting a religious opinion.

When we discover something that we expect to find naturally, why would we attribute that to a supernatural power? Why even bring it up?

[Bust Nak]

That gave me a chuckle. Your statement clearly claims that atheists are not bias and do not interpret the evidence through any filters involving bias.

Clearly.

I would say that this might be the case for those who remain within the neutral default position of having no beliefs in any GODs existing but once information comes through this changes into believing that no GODs exist, a different position, and with it comes accompanying bias and interpretation of the evidence.

Nah, the belief of no gods comes after the evidence, not before.

It is silly of you to attempt to suggest that one side has bias and interprets the evidence based upon the bias while the other side does not.

You say that, but answer me this: are creationists theists, or atheists?

My subjective experience is the only personal meaning I take as a given, and in that I don't 'try and make up' anything. In relation to biological evolution I do not make up that the process is an intelligent mindful one. The evidence of this is too apparent to deny.

Well there you go. I rest my case.

this assumes that GOD would only help those who call themselves Christians. Why would a scientist doing the experiment decide that GOD would only help Christians?

Because that's what God would do, if he wants to be detected.

Why would a scientist assume GOD would consent to such a test in the first place, when the evidence for GOD exists within the creation?

Because that's what God would do, if he wants to be detected.

There are lots of assumptions in regard to the 'test' which need to be addressed before one can successfully claim to have found a way to test for GODs existence in a scientific manner.

And what exactly is your objection towards the assumption that "God would help Christians with information about the content of a envelope, if he wants to be detected?"

You would have to ask member McCulloch. It has been debated that the OP is unclear. McCulloch has been invited to clarify what he was asking, but so far has ignored that.

It literally says "evidence that God does exist" in the title.

I think the thread is about giving examples as to what would be acceptable as anything which could recognizably constitute empirical evidence that GOD exists, and have given my answer on that.

You do realised that is distinct from evidence that GOD does not exist, right? Or perhaps you forgot you said "if the results determined that Christians fared no better or worse than any other group, that in itself would not constitute evidence that GOD does NOT exist."

By 'the rest of us' I can assume you mean strong atheists?

No, I include weak atheists too.

So what? How does that say anything other than there are a group of individual who have access to the same evidence but because they are atheists they have to filter the same data through that bias and as a result "That's not good enough for the rest of us" is expressed.

What bias are you talking about? How is not having personal bias, a bias in itself?

What has that got to do with anything? It shows that your claim that "we just accept the evidence without interpreting what the evidence was showing in relation to personal bias." is a fallacy.

How is that a fallacy? It shows exactly what I claim. Having personal bias in interpetating evidence, is not good enough for us.

[William]

[Replying to post 186 by Bust Nak]

Nah, the belief of no gods comes after the evidence, not before.

What I said: (see bold)

I would say that this might be the case for those who remain within the neutral default position of having no beliefs in any GODs existing but once information comes through this changes into believing that no GODs exist, a different position, and with it comes accompanying bias and interpretation of the evidence.

Information in this case amounts to what the atheist interprets as 'evidence' based on the decision to continue lacking having belief in GODs. That part remains. Now the supposed 'evidence' supports the atheists shift into strong atheism through declaring GODs do not exist.

Of course, the 'evidence' they demand to be shown to prove GODs exist is something they are unable to articulate. They cannot say what they think would constitute evidence that GODs exist. I have yet to see any successful attempt at doing so.

Furthermore I do not believe they are able to succeed in this. Until they can, all demands for this so-called 'evidence' are fallacious.

It is silly of you to attempt to suggest that one side has bias and interprets the evidence based upon the bias while the other side does not.

You say that, but answer me this: are creationists theists, or atheists?

If by 'creationists' you mean those who think the universe is a result of a mindful process rather than a mindless one, then creationists would have to be theists. But that in itself doesn't mean that atheists do not interpret from bias, so your question appears irreverent.

My subjective experience is the only personal meaning I take as a given, and in that I don't 'try and make up' anything. In relation to biological evolution I do not make up that the process is an intelligent mindful one. The evidence of this is too apparent to deny.

Well there you go. I rest my case.

What is your case in relation to my statement above?

Because that's what God would do, if he wants to be detected.

Why would scientists assume that GOD has to be a male entity which wants to be detected?

Why would a scientist assume GOD would consent to such a test in the first place, when the evidence for GOD exists within the creation?

Because that's what God would do, if he wants to be detected.

You give the same answer to a different question. If evidence that GOD exists in the the fact of the universe, what need is there for GOD to 'want to be detected'?

It literally says "evidence that God does exist" in the title.

The question has arisen in the thread as to what member McCulloch meant by 'evidence'. If he meant empirical evidence then the question is 'what would constitute empirical evidence that GOD exists?' I think he meant empirical evidence, and my answer has been given. (see post #9)

You do realised that is distinct from evidence that GOD does not exist, right? Or perhaps you forgot you said "if the results determined that Christians fared no better or worse than any other group, that in itself would not constitute evidence that GOD does NOT exist."

Yes. You do realize that I was specifically questioning your particular example of what would constitute evidence and showing the holes in your example, right?

What bias are you talking about? How is not having personal bias, a bias in itself?

You claim that atheists do not have bias? I say they certainly do. It is a subject for another thread. For now we simply can disagree as there is no point in wandering away from the OP by arguing about it further.

How is that a fallacy? It shows exactly what I claim. Having personal bias in interpetating evidence, is not good enough for us.

Yet, nonetheless, personal bias comes into play when atheists are interpreting the evidence.

But like I said, there in no point in wandering from the OP. We disagree, but if you feel strongly enough about it, you can start a thread to debate it.

[/quote]

[Bust Nak]

Information in this case amounts to what the atheist interprets as 'evidence' based on the decision to continue lacking having belief in GODs. That part remains. Now the supposed 'evidence' supports the atheists shift into strong atheism through declaring GODs do not exist.

How is that bias though?

Of course, the 'evidence' they demand to be shown to prove GODs exist is something they are unable to articulate. They cannot say what they think would constitute evidence that GODs exist. I have yet to see any successful attempt at doing so.

Furthermore I do not believe they are able to succeed in this. Until they can, all demands for this so-called 'evidence' are fallacious.

I don't know how you can say that in the face of my success?

If by 'creationists' you mean those who think the universe is a result of a mindful process rather than a mindless one, then creationists would have to be theists. But that in itself doesn't mean that atheists do not interpret from bias, so your question appears irreverent.

Okay, how about I weaken it say, with respect the evolution, atheists do not interpret from bias, but accept the evidence as is?

What is your case in relation to my statement above?

You, a theist, don't accept the evidence as is, but interpete it with personal bias.

Why would scientists assume that GOD has to be a male entity which wants to be detected?

Don't know. Why do you ask? I have made no such assumption.

You give the same answer to a different question. If evidence that GOD exists in the the fact of the universe, what need is there for GOD to 'want to be detected'?

Don't know and don't care. It does not matter one way or the other whether God wants to be scientifically detected or not. It does not change the fact that God can be detected with my experiment.

The question has arisen in the thread as to what member McCulloch meant by 'evidence'. If he meant empirical evidence then the question is 'what would constitute empirical evidence that GOD exists?' I think he meant empirical evidence, and my answer has been given. (see post #9)

Right, what does that have to do with the fact that it literally said evidence that God does exist in the title, and you went off on a tangent about evidence that God does NOT exist.

Yes. You do realize that I was specifically questioning your particular example of what would constitute evidence and showing the holes in your example, right?

What holes? You think the inability of my experiment to demonstrate the non-existence of God, would somehow disqualify it form being able to demonstrate the existence of God?

You claim that atheists do not have bias? I say they certainly do...

You say that and yet here we are, with my side accepting the evidence of evolution as is, and your side interpeting it with bias.

[William]

[Replying to post 188 by Bust Nak]

At this point I have nothing I want to say in reply to your post as it seems too disconnected and unaligned with what I was arguing.

The reader can decide for themselves.

[Rufus21]

At this point I have nothing I want to say in reply to your post as it seems too disconnected and unaligned with what I was arguing.

The reader can decide for themselves.

I understand your frustration. The two of you have been going back and fourth for a while now without any progress. Taking a break might be a good idea. Perhaps in the meantime you could address my post above. I still don't understand this "bias" and "filter" you talk about.