Evidence for the existence of a god

[Royston]

A god (or God) exists: offer evidence which supports or contradicts this statement.

[Divine Insight]

Even pure philosophy is meaningless if the terms being used are ill-defined or undefined.

So to provide evidence for or against a "god" we must define what we mean by "god" in the first place.

For example, we could define "god" as the living entity within each of us that is actually having the experience of living as a conscious physical being. When defined in this way the "god" is already basically proven by definition of what it is.

I might add that some religions actually define "god" in this way, and thus their concept of a "god" can indeed be shown to exist. The only thing left to argue with at that point is the semantics of whether other people accept this definition of "god".

On the other hand if we define the term "God" to refer to a specific deity, say for example, Thor. Then we can ask question about Thor and see if there is any evidence to back up the claims that such a deity exists. In the case of Thor, one popular property of Thor is that he causes lightening and thunder by wielding a large hammer around. Since lightening can be demonstrated to not be caused by hammer blows, it's a fair to say that we actually have evidence against the existence of Thor (at least as he is defined to behave).

As far as I'm concerned this same method of evidence against a "God" also applies to all the Abrahamic myths of a jealous angry deity who was said to have done all manner of specific things. Things that are even blatant contradictions to the character he is supposed to possess. Because of this I am personally convinced that there exists overwhelming evidence against the God of the Bible, and absolutely no evidence to support that God character.

~~~~~~

What I frown on entirely is when religious people demand that people "disprove" a generic undefined, or ill-defined notion of "god" and then proclaim that since they can't disprove this generic notion, this gives some sort of credibility to the existence of their overly-defined and self-contradicting specific God character.

~~~~~~

Having said all of the above, I agree with various mystical religions that their definition of "god" cannot be disproved. And I also agree that based on how they have defined their "god" the evidence for its existence is overwhelming and self-evident. That alone is not impressive, because at that point their definition of "god" is questionable.

Also, if they go further than this to proclaim that this "god" can intervene in human lives and is itself benevolent, then the evidence appears to be against that notion. This is the case simply because we live in a natural dog-eat-dog world that is filled with disease and suffering, which is actually evidence against the existence of a benevolent "god" that is capable of intervening.

~~~~~

In summary, the amount of evidence that can be provided to support or reject any particular "God Hypothesis" will ultimately depend on how that God is defined. And the more detailed it is defined, the more likely there will exist overwhelming evidence against it.

An undefined "God" would be impossible to provide evidence against. But then a undefined "God" does not require any evidence to dismiss.

[Royston]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Even pure philosophy is meaningless if the terms being used are ill-defined or undefined.

So to provide evidence for or against a "god" we must define what we mean by "god" in the first place.

Well, while I take your point regarding ill-defined perameters, the terms "god" and "God" - on which your unease appears to hinge - seem petty specific to me; and to that end, the OED says the following -

Definition of God in English:
noun
1 (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: 'a moon god'
'the Hindu god Vishnu'

- so let's use the above as definitions for, and as distinctions between, 'god' and 'God'.

Hope that helps clear things up.

Go well

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Even pure philosophy is meaningless if the terms being used are ill-defined or undefined.

So to provide evidence for or against a "god" we must define what we mean by "god" in the first place.

Well, while I take your point regarding ill-defined perameters, the terms "god" and "God" - on which your unease appears to hinge - seem petty specific to me; and to that end, the OED says the following -

Definition of God in English:
noun
1 (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: 'a moon god'
'the Hindu god Vishnu'

- so let's use the above as definitions for, and distinctions between, 'god' and 'God'.

Hope that helps clear things up.

Go well

Even those definitions are themselves unclear.

For example definition #1: Mentions Christianity specifically and implies other monotheistic religions.

The evidence against the Christian God is overwhelming. And is contained within the Christian "Holy Doctrines". The Old and New Testaments. The same applies to the other Abrahamic religions (i.e. Judaism and Islam). They all contain their own evidence against their own deities. A discussion of that would require looking into all the self-contradictions contained within those doctrines.

Definition #2 is less specific and ill-defined: It mentions things like a "Moon Goddess" for example, but doesn't give any indication that it has a clue how that concept is viewed by the people who use that sort of archetype to represent an abstract concept of a "higher consciousness".

Also, even definition #2 appears to be demanding that these "god concepts" represent some "superhuman being" that is distinctly different from the human condition. This would not apply to many Eastern Mystical religions. Or to put this another way, many Eastern Mystical philosophies are often misunderstood by the publishers of Western English Dictionaries.

Therefore, we need to consider the possibility of Western Bias being pushed onto some of these mystical concepts of a "god". As I've tried to describe in my earlier post many mystical religions teach that the "god concept" is actually a reference to our own higher consciousness. We are a facet of the mind of God. Or to put this in Sanskrit as it is often used in Eastern Mystical religions, "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are that". You are this higher consciousness that we call "god".

And by that definition of "god", then our very existence is "evidence of god", by definition as I had stated earlier.

The question then becomes one of asking whether or not our "consciousness" actually extends to some "higher dimension" that may have a non-physical existence, or at least a physical existence in some dimension or that we are incapable of currently understanding.

So even these dictionary definitions that you have offered don't provide much help one way or the other, save for in the case of Definition #1 where most monotheistic religions, (and certainly the Abrahamic religions) provide their own evidence against the existence of their God deities.

But in terms of definition #2 that you have offered we need to be careful that we might not be fully understanding what some of the Eastern Mystical religions are actually saying.

They may not be proclaiming that "god" is a separate entity from us. In fact, they may not even be concerned with calling the true nature of our consciousness "god" at all. They may prefer to simply say, "Tat t'vam asi", meaning "You are that". You are this mystical essence of reality that we seek to define and/or prove or disprove.

So once again, I think the topic isn't as cut-and-dried as some would like for it to be. However, in the case of the Abrahamic religions it does indeed seem to be an open and shut case. The God of the Abrahamic religions most certainly does not exist and the evidence against it can be found within the doctrines of those very religions themselves.

[puddleglum]

The world that God has created proves that he exists.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
(Romans 1:19-20 ESV)

[Divine Insight]

The world that God has created proves that he exists.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
(Romans 1:19-20 ESV)

Actually according to Modern Physics Paul may have actually been wrong.

Paul was assuming that the universe is eternal. Paul says, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power,..."

His eternal power as been exhibited in the world? Sorry Paul, but that was just a guess on your part.

Everything we know about the universe today suggests that the universe is not eternal. It's slowly unwinding due to entropy. It's also expanding at an ever increasing rate.

So the divine properties that Paul thought he saw in the world may have never existed. This was nothing more than Paul's guess. And it certainly appears that his guess was wrong.

Besides to simply stand in awe of the universe and not understand how it could exist, doesn't automatically mean that Thor must then exist.

Let's not forget here that Paul wasn't just arguing that some arbitrary creator. Paul was specifically arguing for Yawheh and Jesus as being the God characters.

And therefore Paul's claim that because the universe appears at first sight to require a creator that this means that people are without excuse for not believing in Yahweh and Jesus has no merit.

In fact, based on this particular argument that Paul gives, Paul is actually giving the Eastern Mystics full support for believing in the "God" that they believe in.

There is nothing that would link a universe that had to have been made by a creator God to the superstitious fables of Yahweh specifically.

So Paul's arguments that men are without excuse for not believing in his favorite religion simply don't hold up.

In fact, his argument that the universe had to have been created by a creator God doesn't hold water anyway. Paul has given us nothing more than evidence that Paul himself simply can't think outside of the box from which he is evangelizing from.

He may as well have been preaching, "The universe exists, therefore Thor must be God!"

[marco]

A god (or God) exists: offer evidence which supports or contradicts this statement.

An enormous question, Royston. I recall in a previous discussion one debater offered the Big Bang Theory, explaining to the novitiates that here Theory meant something that was proved to be true. Big Bang, ergo no God.

When Richard Dawkins explains why God doesn't exist, he usually concentrates exclusively on Yahweh. Of course there remains, despite Richard's huge credentials, the possibility that Yahweh does exist and doesn't choose, for the moment, to do anything to contradict the biologist. So there is a grain of chance that Yahweh may still threaten us, post mortem,
Of course the various contradictions in the Bible don't disqualify God from existing: they open up a debate on error. But Both Yahweh and Allah seem so much grounded in the minds of primitive inventors that it is very hard to take them as fact. The silly way in which they communicate: on a mountain, in a cave, hints at a heaven with no modern conveniences.

As for god - that surely opens up a wonderland of possibilities. We could place gods in various dimensions and have them exist quite happily without impinging on our own. But if we think they can impinge, it would be interesting to speculate on what this would involve.
Perhaps a 20 dimensional god would "zero" 16 dimensions and make his coordinates similar to those of a 4-dimensional being. Dying in 4-D would mean life in 20-D. That would explain the Christian paradox that death is life. The zeroed coordinates would still make the being a resident of dimension 20.

But does a helpful, kindly, fatherly God exist. The test would be that he does help, he is kind and he acts as a dad. On this basis he doesn't exist.

[Divine Insight]

When Richard Dawkins explains why God doesn't exist, he usually concentrates exclusively on Yahweh.

But that's specifically the type of God that Richard Dawkins argues against. He's said many times that he doesn't argue against the existence of any possible abstract notion of "god". He's even said on many occasions that an ill-defined abstract notion of God is meaningless in any case. If its that ill-defined then no case needs to be made against it. It can be dismissed just as easily as it can be proposed. He specifically argues why the God who supposedly intervenes like Yahweh makes no sense and is not required.

I think Stephen Hawking is referring to the same type of God when we claims there is no God as well.

They are both arguing that there simply is no need for a God who actually intervenes in the universe like an all-mighty baby-sitter.

A God who is totally undetectable and is not required to baby-sit the universe would be a God that has neither support nor evidence for its existence and therefore can be dismissed without any support or evidence for its dismissal.

Of course there remains, despite Richard's huge credentials, the possibility that Yahweh does exist and doesn't choose, for the moment, to do anything to contradict the biologist.

Actually this isn't correct. Dawkins is arguing against the "Creationists Claim" that a God would be absolutely necessary to design humans by guiding evolution along.

So any arguments that Yahweh has simply chosen to not intervene in evolution only supports Dawkins position and would actually be a defeat for the "Creationists" who insist that evolution could not occur without a baby-sitting intervening God.

So to claim that Yahweh doesn't baby-sit evolution would be a loss for the "Creationists" arguments. Their argument is entirely based on the idea that without a baby-sitting intervening God evolution makes no sense.

[marco]

Of course there remains, despite Richard's huge credentials, the possibility that Yahweh does exist and doesn't choose, for the moment, to do anything to contradict the biologist.

Actually this isn't correct. Dawkins is arguing against the "Creationists Claim" that a God would be absolutely necessary to design humans by guiding evolution along.

It is incorrect if you think Dawkins possesses infallibility. I overlooked this. For the most part I like what he says; his views are refreshing. But I wouldn't replace Yahweh with Richard, even though RD might take more note of a sparrow's fall.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Paul was assuming that the universe is eternal. Paul says, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power,..."

No, he was saying that God is eternal. The fact that the universe isn't eternal strengthens Paul's argument for a creator.

Sorry Paul, but that was just a guess on your part.

Paul wasn't guessing. He was writing under the inspiration of God.

Let's not forget here that Paul wasn't just arguing that some arbitrary creator. Paul was specifically arguing for Yawheh and Jesus as being the God characters.

And therefore Paul's claim that because the universe appears at first sight to require a creator that this means that people are without excuse for not believing in Yahweh and Jesus has no merit.

Paul never claims that the fact that God created the universe is enough to cause people to believe in Yahweh and Jesus.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Romans 1:21 ESV)

The fact that God exists in enough to show people they should honor him and be thankful to them, but people failed to do even this.

The evidence that God exists is only one part of the argument that Paul is making. He also goes on to show that everyone has an inherent sense of right and wrong and that God has revealed his will in the Scriptures. But even those who don't know the scriptures can be justly condemned because they have failed to live up to what they did know about God.