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?

[William]

[Replying to post 134 by KenRU]

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.

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.

So yes, you want to focus upon a particular idea of a GOD which comes to our attention from a set of books gathered together and dubiously referred to as the word of that GOD, has hear-say stories of amazing things which contradict known physics within it and in some cases these have been shown to not have happened at all, and in all other cases cannot be shown to have happened at all.

But you want to be shown that they can indeed happen and then you will believe that GOD exists...or at least that particular idea of GOD.

But how, I ask, do these things (should they happen for you) constitute evidence that GOD exists?

For example, how would you know that the things done were not simply evidence of a far older and knowledgeable species using science in order to do them?
Would it be fair to conclude, given what we know we are able to do with science presently, that this would be a more likely explanation than 'GOD' did it, or would you be happy to conclude that any such species which can do such things, have the right to be referred to as 'GOD'.

If so, then your specification of what GOD is, has been determined by your expectation as to what a GOD should be able to do, not in how the GOD is able to do it.

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

Unfortunately, no - such events would not "toss science out the window" because they could be explained as happening through the use of science.

Otherwise - if you were to say "prove that such things happen by science rather than magic" you might as well say that the worlds best magicians of today are doing their tricks of illusions through methods which cannot be scientifically explained, so must be 'real' magic!

You don't want to wander down that path now, do you?

[Danmark]

So then, what are some examples of scientific evidence would convince you that God exists? Please share with the group!

There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists. That is the point. God does not exist and there is nothing in science to convince anyone otherwise. God is solely the product of the human imagination, the early, primitive imagination which knew so little it could not conceive of natural causes for wind and rain, earthquakes, floods, sunshine and the growth of plants or the continuing diversity of the species.

Today we can explain these things without resort to magic or 'god.' That is why the belief in a creator god is slowly dying. 'He' is no longer necessary to explain nature. The only reason belief in a god continues is tradition: the indoctrination of the young by age old irrational beliefs. Study after study confirms that belief in a god is more likely by those with less education. Knowledge is the enemy of the god concept.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Good question.

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

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

Also specify what type of evidence one is asking for. Empirical [Objectively able to be seen as factual, actual, real, verifiable, first-hand;] or other [subjectively experienced, seen in the nature of creation...]?

My understanding of 'what GOD is' is that IT is a conscious self aware intelligent creative entity which (in relation to our reality) permeates the whole universe and divests aspects of its conscious self into forms within the universe and uses those forms to creator other forms in which to divest more aspects of its consciousness into.

Essentially that makes all of us humans aspects of GOD consciousness.

So with the above definition, ask your question;

Q: "What would constitute evidence that the above idea of what GOD is, does exist?"

[Replying to post 138 by Willum]

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

EZPZ. Such evidence is obvious. Even here on this message board.

If you are aware of any I am unaware of, I'd love to see it.

No doubt I am aware of some types which you are not, but how would I bring it to your attention and why?

Otherwise you have a belief that doesn't matter one way or the other.

Not to you. But is life all about just you?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 143 by William]



William, out of curiosity..

What is the utility in believing consciousness and "God" are essentially synonymous? You argue to establish something with no useful future, it seems to me. The appearance is that you take many things we don't have a clear notion of, then replace a conceptual label with another, and presto! Panentheism. But I fail to see how it's in any way impactful or enlightening, let alone fares any better in a debate about verifying truth claims. Assuming every philosophical position the non-theist takes is flawed, or that science has wildly missed in its descriptions of reality, I don't understand how a God/consciousness/immanent/shared experience claim is demonstrated to be true. Are you not subject to the same faith as any other worldview carrying "God" as luggage?

[William]

[Replying to post 142 by Danmark]

There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

Exactly the thrust of my argument in relation to the argument of Burden of Proof and the fallacy of that argument in relation to non-theists use of it as a legitimate device of debate against theists who state a belief in the existence of GOD.

That is the point. God does not exist and there is nothing in science to convince anyone otherwise.

Not in science. But that is besides the point and in no way constitutes evidence that - as you claim "GOD does not exist."

God is solely the product of the human imagination, the early, primitive imagination which knew so little it could not conceive of natural causes for wind and rain, earthquakes, floods, sunshine and the growth of plants or the continuing diversity of the species.

In order to proclaim as much you have forgotten that the idea of GOD has also evolved and is not longer merely a primitive idea.

As far as being 'the product of the human imagination' the argument has little merit as imagination plays a key role in human evolution and creativity and will continue to do so. It is the place where possibility is formulated and ideas spring from, some useful to science and others useful to philosophy.
There is no scientific basis for the implied claim that imagination is surplus to requirement. Nor is there any good argument that GOD is the creation of human imagination. Again, that would all depend on the specified idea of GOD.

Today we can explain these things without resort to magic or 'god.'

What things?

That is why the belief in a creator god is slowly dying.

Just to be accurate, certain ideas of a creator GOD might well be on the way out. This does not mean that other beliefs in a creator GOD will not take their place, or that the existence of GOD will fade along with human unbelief. IF GOD exists, then no amount of unbelief will change that fact.
But I think you are very mistaken that the belief in a creator GOD is slowly dying.

The only reason belief in a god continues is tradition: the indoctrination of the young by age old irrational beliefs. Study after study confirms that belief in a god is more likely by those with less education. Knowledge is the enemy of the god concept.

Pretty much another subject though, isn't it? An opinion you obviously think is correct.

Scientists are presently involved in subjects such as AI, genetic manipulation, and finding ways in which to prolong - even indefinitely - human life. All those things in themselves do not signify that GOD does not exist.

But as I said - another subject. The answer to the OP question has been provided.

[William]

[Replying to post 144 by Inigo Montoya]

Inigo

I am happy to answer your questions but not in this thread.

How about this thread?

Panentheism

[Mithrae]

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

It can help to illustrate the problems in any presumption that some alternative worldview stands coherently on its own merits. If we do not really understand the nature of reality yet, it is obviously entirely fallacious to suppose that generalized theism is an unnecessary extra subject to a higher burden of proof, yet that is the approach we almost always see. Various philosophical stances which might be considered counterparts to theism or even religion itself - eg. atheism, materialism, naturalism, determinism, humanism, secularism - are rarely if ever subjected to the same constant demands of irrefutable scientific proof, and could not meet them if they were.

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.

Well put. This sounds similar to the point I raised earlier:

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

Despite common usage, I think it's a little misleading to speak of evidence for something. Evidence is simply the available facts and information providing context for the evaluation of hypotheses' plausibility.

If we speak of evidence for something, the only reasonable way that can be understood is that the given facts increase the probability/plausibility of a statement being true. That certainly includes common usage, but the problem is that such a conception also means that the existence of New York is evidence for the existence of Spiderman: Spiderman(A) lives in New York(B), so (A+B) is more probable in a world where (B) is confirmed than in one where it isn't.

Similarly, a thousand foot high shining figure appearing at Mecca and booming out that the Muslims should acknowledge Jesus as their God and saviour could be considered evidence for the Christian God; or it could be considered 'evidence' for a conspiracy of billionaire Christians using advanced holographic technology and colluding with the Saudi government for unknown reasons. Relative to the absence of such a figure, the billionaire conspiracy has been made more probable by the observed facts.

So the observed fact of the giant evangelist provides more context for evaluating different hypotheses, and the Christian-God hypothesis might be considered the best explanation, but I'm not sure it would be correct to say that the big display was evidence for it, per se. The conclusion is not implicit in the raw data, because we know that often such implicit assumptions are misleading.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 142 by Danmark]

There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

Exactly the thrust of my argument in relation to the argument of Burden of Proof and the fallacy of that argument in relation to non-theists use of it as a legitimate device of debate against theists who state a belief in the existence of GOD.

That is the point. God does not exist and there is nothing in science to convince anyone otherwise.

Not in science. But that is besides the point and in no way constitutes evidence that - as you claim "GOD does not exist."

Sure it does since you cannot propose any other reliable way of knowing.
That is the very problem and the essence of this thread.

Religious belief relies on magic, or mysticism, or "i just think so" or 'faith.' The entire point of this thread and of reasonableness itself is the idea of evidence and reason to test ideas in the real world.

The problem with your approach is that you have no way to differentiate the 'evidence' of a god from the 'evidence' of a goblin. Science demonstrates the difference between astrology and astronomy.

Please demonstrate a reliable way of understanding reality besides the scientific method and then we might have a reasonable debate. Until then the discussion is meaningless.

[Bust Nak]

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

It cannot be any more specific because any and all scientific evidence is accepted. I wanted to make the bar as low as possible, I do not want to unnecessarily limit the kind of evidence acceptable, I do not want to reject any scientific evidence that would otherwise be acceptable.

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!

"What would constitute evidence..." and "what are some examples..." are different questions. The original question has been answered. This is the first time (yes, I went back and checked) examples were asked for, so here is one example:

Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group in guessing the written content of an envelope, in a lab environment.

[William]

[Replying to post 148 by Danmark]

Sure it does since you cannot propose any other reliable way of knowing.

What has that got to do with the thread topic?
It presumes that scientific method is the only reliable way of knowing GOD does exist, which contradicts what you wrote here;

There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

Indeed - I have and do propose there is a reliable way of getting to know GOD does exist, through individual subjective experience and honest appraisal of said experience.

Religious belief relies on magic, or mysticism, or "i just think so" or 'faith.'

Belief in GOD is not dependent on those things. Religion owns only the rights to their perspective ideas of GOD, (as well as condemnation for false representation).
GOD Itself is not someone who can be owed and one doesn't need to practice any religious ritual in order to connect with GOD.

The entire point of this thread and of reasonableness itself is the idea of evidence and reason to test ideas in the real world.

No. The point of the thread was to determine what - if anything - would constitute evidence that God does exist and it has been established that only subjective experience can confirm for the individual that this is so and that there is no known way in which to provide evidence through scientific process.

The problem with your approach is that you have no way to differentiate the 'evidence' of a god from the 'evidence' of a goblin.

What you perceive as a 'problem' is not one at all - at least not for me. My understanding of what GOD is, differentiates from my understanding of what a goblin is.
Primarily GOD is the totality of all consciousness everywhere, and a goblin is consciousness within form. Specifically a goblin, like a human, is a form.

Science demonstrates the difference between astrology and astronomy.

No. Astrology is a philosophical study of heavenly bodies and their apparent influences on all things to do with Earth.
Astronomy is the scientific study of heavenly bodies.
Consciousness is that which demonstrates the differences between the two.

Please demonstrate a reliable way of understanding reality besides the scientific method and then we might have a reasonable debate.

Please clarify what you mean by 'a reliable way'. Are you meaning a scientific way? If so, then you are back to demanding something which you acknowledge science cannot provide. If not, then please elaborate.

Until then the discussion is meaningless.

Please explain why you are participating in a meaningless discussion.