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]

[Replying to post 119 by William]

Great, images to show how utterly ridiculous this idea of of the Christian God is. Is that how you picture 'him?'

[Wootah]

[Replying to Neatras]

The problem with that is that in science, metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential.

Except for causality.

Apart from causality in science, metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential.

Oh and numbers.

Apart from causality and numbers in science, metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential.

And that we have a brain that can rationally deduce things.

Apart from causality and numbers in scienceand that we are even capable of thinking , metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential.

And that an experiment here works the same everywhere (slc).
And formulas.
And that there is an external world.
And that it is knowable.

Apart from causality and numbers and ... in science, metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential.

[Bust Nak]

This thread was created in order to get an answer to the question

"What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

I have skimmed through the thread and haven't found any post of yours where the OP question has ben answered.

I replied to the OP back in post#33. Repeated here for your convenience: "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." I know you saw it, as you responded to it here.

[Danmark]

This thread was created in order to get an answer to the question

"What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

I have skimmed through the thread and haven't found any post of yours where the OP question has ben answered.

I replied to the OP back in post#33. Repeated here for your convenience: "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." I know you saw it, as you responded to it here.

I've answered this before on this forum as well. But there are more:
If someone actually performed all the miracles ascribed to Jesus, including the ones he is alleged to have said man would do.
If someone in the name of god stood, for example in Seattle tomorrow and commanded Mt. Rainier to move 30 miles offshore and float there indefinitely leaving no one harmed. Instead of a mountain, there would be a lovely meadow with an elevation of 1000 feet.

Anything is possible with 'God,' so your imagination is the only limit to what could be done. The Earth really could stand still without ill effect. We could at will do everything Superman could do. An obelisk could suddenly appear, transparent and indestructible, 10,000 feet high, hovering an inch above the ground with inscriptions in all languages saying, "I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
Why do we age? Why are our bodies not perfect? Why is there disease? Why does my back hurt. O! I forgot, man sinned so God made deadly viruses and hideous birth defects.

Or...
How about if Jesus really had returned 2000 years ago like he said he would when some of those he spoke with were still alive. And with all of the portents and events as described?

[DanieltheDragon]

I think that being critical of the belief in the theory of evolution as being a mindless act, is not in itself indicative or evidence of the being 'denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution'

Alright, here's your answer man. And just because your personal incredulity might cause you to want to divert the course back to asserting that a mindless act is the equivalent of "magical thinking," I'm going to go ahead and predict that your response will not contain any technical evidence or even a basic comprehension of chemistry. This isn't an insult to your intelligence, it's a genuine prediction that any answer you come up with will be based entirely on your metaphysical presuppositions. The problem with that is that in science, metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential. It's not that science is going to dismiss the literally infinite potential explanations depending on some supernatural psyche playing puppetmaster behind the cosmic veil, it's just that such concepts are so egotistically driven that any person who believes they can advance an argument based on "self-evident truths" is really just trying to play make-believe and pretend everyone else should have the exact same epiphany.

Do you know why biological evolution is not driven by a master intelligence? Because you have no method of conceptualizing how that might have an impact on the physical world. Let's run through some options.

• The intelligence somehow causes specific mutations in DNA.
• The intelligence controls when an organism dies or reproduces, selecting for chosen candidates to pass on genetic data.
• The intelligence initially set up the universe so that it would get the desired result on the first shot.
• The intelligence is some kind of panentheistic force that permeates all of existence and by some force of intent is making living organisms exist and want to reproduce.

1. Wrong, we know that there are chemical and nuclear forces at work that are entirely mechanistic and rely on absolutely no intelligence, resulting in changes to DNA. There is no intelligence here, or at least there is no way you'll suddenly bring in evidence to the contrary. The most you can argue is "the intelligence behaves as an entirely mechanistic or deterministic process, but secretly it's pulling the strings in a way that makes it indistinguishable from a mindless process." In which case you're simply making a baseless claim that is indistinguishable from a nonexistent claim, and ought to be dismissed simply due to it being wishful thinking. I won't presuppose this is your answer, I'm just giving you a little preview on what kind of answers you should expect to receive the next time you use metaphysical reasoning to assert that an observed, physical phenomenon in reality is controlled by whatever god you think exists or "is".

2. Unless your "intelligence" driving biological evolution is sadistic or just really clinical, it's done quite a bit of matchmaking and dinner preparations, somehow coercing every organism that ever lived to dance along with some kind of mad choreographed dance that consists ultimately of producing some organism later down the line it especially likes. Again, we can observe through entirely mechanistic principles what will happen when we put a collection of organisms in an ecosystem: Predictable, reliable models that show an entirely physical process independent of some kind of divine intervention. I won't presuppose this is your answer either. This response is to show you that our ability to predict future data based on mechanistic or deterministic principles will always outstrip your scientifically useless metaphysics. Your dismissal of "randomness" behind life is entirely your own problem to deal with, stop pushing your insecurities with regard to biology onto the rest of us. We're still doing science, we're still learning more about exactly how life functions, and in none of it are we seeing an intelligence. Unless you'd like to make a clear, clinical definition of what it means for an intelligence to "drive" biological evolution. Right. Now. Because I'm tired of tap-dancing around the issue. Is the "driving" a chemical, radioactive, molecular, behavioral, or ecological stimulus that is causing an effect in living organisms? Because in all cases I can tell that you aren't equipped to give satisfactory answers, and so it leads me to believe that all this time you've seen life as being some kind of ephemeral presence in the universe that can only exist if it's being played like a VCR tape on some god's TV set. William, this is the first and last time I'll say it: Just because something sounds simple, and sounds like it can be easily explained, doesn't make it so. There are so many factors involved in life that asserting an intelligence is behind all of it doesn't explain anything. At all. It is a non-answer, a blatant disregard for the amount of work required to understand the field and its nuances. It's hard to convey just how badly you're distorting the argument by continuing to act as if your "intelligent force driving biological evolution" is anything other than a thought experiment you cooked up to explain the intricacies you have never posed any interest in learning about while on this forum.

3. If the intelligence set up the universe for some goal... Y'know what? I'm not gonna bother with this one, it's so boring and laughable. Sure, big bang caused by god, why not? It's completely disconnected from the discussion because it offers no technical explanation for how life behaves in the past or present. You're definitely not making this argument, so I won't waste my time. This section is to highlight how thorough I'm trying to be, both in figuring out what in the world you're actually arguing, and how nonspecific, vague, and easily misinterpreted it is in the grand scheme of all the time you've been here, positing without proving, arguing without explaining.

4. This is the one I actually think you're making an argument for. And to be perfectly honest, I don't care. That intelligence is not "deciding" anything. It doesn't decide that a boulder rolling down a cliff will exhibit a force in the direction of the accelerating force of gravity based on its mass and velocity; it doesn't decide that the sun emits a certain amount of radiation per second. It doesn't decide the amount of chlorophyll in a plant either. This is still entirely mechanistic. If your "intelligence" is so brain-dead that modern physicists can pick apart the great underlying machinations of this intelligence and show how utterly causal it is, by only ever following physical laws that would still be obeyed by all matter in the universe whether there is some disembodied mind or not, then what you're advancing still isn't a coherent argument. The intelligence isn't doing anything of note. It's not changing the trajectories of comets, it's not suddenly turning stars off and on again in order to advance some kind of scheme. But you still believe it is inherently interconnected with living biological organisms whose bodies are made up of organic chemicals which are made up of physical particles. You believe that there is some kind of "driving force" behind biological evolution that is not random, and that wouldn't even be such a problem if you didn't make such a ridiculous claim that not presupposing an intelligence behind evolution was "magical thinking." Do you know why this is such a huge blunder on your part, that has made me lose any interest in your arguments or debate position? Because that is you lashing out against scientists who spend all their lives showing how little magical thinking they tolerate in the lab. People whose methods for understanding the truth about the universe takes such effort and humility that your insults and denigration is toward their methodology. And methodology is the one way that we can all come to a consensus on any aspect of the universe. And methodology, specificity, even basic knowledge about a scientific field you go to such lengths to make grandiose claims about is something you have not shown at all on this forum.

If you took any kind of biology class, if you actually learned about the fields of evolutionary biology, you would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to maintain this notion that there is an intelligence "driving" (and again, that verb is so non-descriptive as to be meaningless; it's a layman's method of prescribing some kind of force they can't even begin to articulate while still expecting everyone to listen to them over scientists whose experiments have shown no signs of intelligence on any of the physical levels making up the biodiversity we see in nature) evolution. That's how I can make so many assertions about your argument. It comes from a place of ignorance; being able to learn about other scientific fields is the most crucial element of any scientific theory because at any time some scientist may propose a theory that conflicts with the data currently categorized in another field, requiring them to rework the theory to be consistent with data collected previously. You lack the methodology to try and make your argument consistent with reality, instead using "intelligent driving force" as a band-aid solution to a worldview filled with glaring holes that you can only hope that real scientists may someday fill while not knocking over your flimsy model's pivotal assumptions.

Moderator Warning


Please refrain from commenting about other posters, there is no need to drag your thoughts or opinions of another poster into the debate.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 119 by William]

Great, images to show how utterly ridiculous this idea of of the Christian God is. Is that how you picture 'him?'

It's those kind of "graven images" that help make atheists out of would-be believers.

[William]

[Replying to post 120 by marco]

So no - you don't have an answer as to what would constitute evidence that God does exist.
That was exactly what I was arguing with member McCulloch which prompted him to start this thread.

No one knows that GOD does not exist. Atheists would not make such a claim.

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.

"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."

Who are 'they' and what is their 'position'?

This thread verifies my statement - the statement member McCulloch used as part of the OP to this thread. The statement which was taken from this post

From the answers so far given, none are really specific to evidence of the sort which can be verified through scientific process and repeat-ability and some are demand-centered with the focus of GOD proving to them GOD exists.

For example, this:

If the answer happened to be "No", then a clear sign other than simply nothing would be required. Example, if my friend lost a finger due to an accident. I pray for complete healing. My friend either gets a new finger or I get some clear sign it's not going to happen like a flash in the sky, or just a simple "no" in my ear. ~benchwarmer Post 2

Obviously such evidence is subjective. Many religious people who believe in their idea of GOD also claim such type of evidence that GOD exists, although most do not approach this from an attitude of demand in the first instance. It is more of a confirmation and even somewhat surprising to them.

I chopped the tip of my thumb off when cutting kindling one time - the cut was at an angle and took part of the thumb nail off as well. The wound did not even bleed and there was no pain involved. Eventually the cut off part regenerated.
At the time I thanked GOD for this strange happening, but perhaps it isn't that strange at all and can be explained. It doesn't matter to me either way.

Belief in GOD creating subtle signs that I as an individual recognize when they occur is simply a thing between me and GOD. Enough of those events happening altogether create a significant package of evidence that there is a definite intelligent thing going on between my subjective reality and the external world.

Flashes in the sky? There have been signs I have equated with this interaction. Whispers in the ear? No. Whispered thoughts. perhaps.

2) Christians would clearly be better off and better protected than all other groups. If it was undeniable that once you became a Christian you would no longer 'fail' in so many ways just like everyone else. i.e. Christians would never get sick or if they did, they would be healed quickly. Christians would not represent any significant portion of the prison population or be victims of crime. In other words, if Christians has some demonstrable advantage over non Christians. Fanciful stories of 'being saved', etc. are not demonstrable. ~benchwarmer Post 2

In relation to the above, this is looking for evidence of GOD in relation to others and i have never seen anything from that area which has convinced me of the reality of GOD.
If a Christian told me that GOD had answered a prayer, I have no problem believing that this may well be the case. It has nothing to do with helping me to believe in GOD. My own subjective experience takes care of that one.

3) Direct evidence of this god's existence. i.e. some observable way to detect this god is actually there.~benchwarmer Post 2

The above clearly does not answer the OP question "What would constitute evidence that God does exist?".

Universal conversion. An announcement from a being a thousand feet high that causes Christians and Muslims immediately to throw aside their fictions. As an illustration of good intent he might help Trump deal with North Korea. As a bonus, no more death nor disease nor mosquitoes nor hippopotami.

And a little apology for arriving so late. ~ marco post 5

Universal conversion to 'what'?
How would a being a thousand feet high cause Christians and Muslims immediately to throw aside their fictions? Where would this being derive from? How on earth did it get so big? Why would such a being be evidence that GOD does exist?

How would no more death or disease nor mosquitoes nor hippopotami be evidence that GOD does exist?

in what way would 'a little apology for arriving so late' be counted as evidence that GOD exists?

I was thinking that if he made things so clear that the entire human race felt compelled to accept him, that would be evidence of a sort.~ marco post 5

Evidence of a sort, but would it be evidence that GOD does exist?

This exchange is so relevant to the current debate.~McCulloch post 73

Not only is the exchange not very relevant to the debate, it isn't even relevant to the OP. McCulloch noticeably refrains from answering the OP question himself, which is more relevant to the current debate to those who are saying that the demand for evidence is pointless when those who demand the evidence don't even appear to know what they are asking for and cannot give definitive answers.

Not to say that how the debate unfolded isn't interesting in itself, but that the question was answered more clearly by theists - who don't even require evidence that GOD exists. Atheists appear to be stumped, and when they have attempted to give examples, those are shown to be fallacious - useless in regard to scientific processing.

The thread shows clearly that the answer is "That which would constitute scientific evidence that God does exist, does not itself actually exist, as far as can be ascertained presently."

Obviously, those like myself who see the creativity of an Intelligent Being (which can be referred to as a 'GOD') in the nature of the universe and specifically in the evidence related to the planet-life, interpret it as such, while others do not. That is really - as I have been saying - simply a matter of personal subjective interpretation, warm fuzzies and all.

The evidence of nature itself is enough to constitute evidence that God does exist.
The fact that subjective experience related to interaction with GOD also adds evidence to that conclusion for the individual is not something which is testable by any current scientific process, and thus - while it can and is regarded as evidence as far as the individual is concerned, it does not constitute the type of evidence that shows that God does exist, because of its subjective nature.

That in itself does not mean that GOD does not exist.

Unless you are an atheist of course...but that doesn't count , because being an atheist does not mean that GOD does not exist, and demanding unspecified evidence to prove that GOD does exist, is fallacy.
Specified demanded evidence is shown to be questionable in relation to present scientific process.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 127 by William]
This confusing, contradictory melange of words can be summed up with:

"i have never seen anything from that area which has convinced me of the reality of GOD." [sic]

Agreed, there is no evidence of the existence of God. This post also ignores the many examples that have been given of evidence that would show there is a god; examples of which do not exist. William, the body of your work demonstrates you have given nothing that even remotely suggests a god exists. Many times over you've made the atheists' case for them.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 127 by William]

No one knows that GOD does not exist. Atheists would not make such a claim.

I and several others know that God does not exist.
Now, gods might exist - terraformers, but it is trivial for the modern mind to disprove an all powerful God.

Look for the mass - anything capable of doing anything would have a mass that was a significant fraction of the universe's.

We can "see" the Sun and the Moon by its mass, but not God.
God don't exist.

God doesn't say "howdie," except to folks who are probably, by their other traits, schizophrenic, probably through the massive inbreeding endemic in the Bible's genealogies, or only to those people.
No "howdie's" no existence.

The principals of Judeo-Christianity on sin and forgiveness are designed to promote sin via the psychological phenomenon of positive and negative re-enforcement.
Flawed principal - no God.

Evolution demonstrates a pattern of simple to complex, not infinite, to zero, to chaos the creation to... nonsense.

Everywhere you look, every stone you upturn, there is contradiction, and, no God.

So, no God.

[Mithrae]

there is no evidence of the existence of God.

Can you prove that negative, or is this an article of faith on your part? William for his part was thoughtful enough to use the phrase "I have never seen..."

I notice that you have never coherently responded (or responded at all as far as I recall) to the fact that theistic idealism appears to be the most reasonable hypothesis regarding the nature of reality. Nor to the phenomenon of religiously-catalyzed medically-unexplained rapid cures of serious illnesses, which despite a small chance of becoming explained sometime in the future must have a correspondingly large probability of being 'miraculous.' Those few at Lourdes being the most thoroughly documented of course, though there've been numerous other reports including on this forum (and including in William's own post!) of more individual experiences which can't be confirmed or disconfirmed... which doesn't stop many critics from attacking and insulting the intelligence or sanity of the people who've experienced them by making sweeping declarations that those events simply don't occur.

No evidence whatsoever. You keep on believing that