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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Does Tehran exist? Well, (a) I see the name in the news, (b) I've seen people online claiming to be from there, I can see it on (c) a map, I can see it via google earth, and if I really wanted to I could book a plane ticket and (d) go visit. In other words, there are multiple ways for me to verify it.

So what I deduce from the above illustration is that one doesn't have to have personal experience of God to be convinced he exists, in the absence of the possibility of seeing an image (ie google maps), one can base ones conviction on ...

a) seeing the name written spoken about from a source (ie the bible)

b) seeing people who claim they have personal experience of God (ie christians) and choosing to believe their "claims".

c) seeing God described in a simple way on paper (as seeing the outline of a country on a map) - see point (a)

d) believing sincerely in ones heart that taking certain measures will result in meeting that one (ie believing one could meet God by dying if one {quote} "really wanted to" {end quote}).

Sounds reasonble to me.





JW

[Neatras]

Wait a minute, isn't the purpose of this thread to show what counts as evidence of existence ? No non-theist denies that a theist can be convinced through a variety of means. It's just that what they're convinced by isn't necessarily evidenced by anything. Having faith in something doesn't mean you've made evidence appear, unless you're willing to follow that to its naturally absurd conclusion.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment. Pretty straight forward.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by Neatras]

Wait a minute, isn't the purpose of this thread to show what counts as evidence of existence ?

Apparently not. The question asked is "What would constitute evidence that God does exist?" based on the quote above that.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment. Pretty straight forward.

Yes - exactly.

a) seeing the name written spoken about from a source (ie the bible)

b) seeing people who claim they have personal experience of God (ie christians) and choosing to believe their "claims".

c) seeing God described in a simple way on paper (as seeing the outline of a country on a map) - see point (a)

d) believing sincerely in ones heart that taking certain measures will result in meeting that one (ie believing one could meet God by dying if one {quote} "really wanted to"

None of the above can be said to be the type of evidence useful to science.

(a,b,c,d) may count as evidence to the individual but all are dependent upon the individuals personal bias and hearsay, so are not really even personal evidence based upon personal subjective first hand experience for that.

(a,b,c) = hearsay
(d) = wishful thinking based upon hearsay.

[Mithrae]

Have you personally verified or had any experience of the construction of massive monuments with bronze age river-valley technologies, or young generals' conquest of half the known world in less than a decade, or systematic eradication of entire peoples and cultures? How about black holes, anti-matter, dark matter, quantum superpositions, or the fact that all the solid matter you come into contact with is composed of mostly empty space?

Of course once you have decided to proceed from an assumption that it is "extraordinary" to consider the prospect of the materialist/physicalist worldview being incorrect, I suppose that pretty much anything whatsoever can be granted a pass as not really all that extraordinary except that one case of special pleading for which we absolutely must have personal verification

Is there evidence for all those things? Yes.

Evidence for gods? No.

Why that difference keeps escaping the attention of some at this website is befuddling to me.

The thread topic asks what is the nature of evidence appropriate to this question: Your bald assertion that there is none doesn't answer that question, it's just blind circularity.

I don't want to infer too much from your failure to respond to my actual comments, but whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not, it seems clear from these various examples that expecting personal verification as a criterion of evidence is not something that we normally do and therefore is obviously special pleading when applied to the question of God's existence. Yet it's something that we see over and over again from folk on this site! So is the criterion of lab testing suggested by Bust Nak, which is not even met by all scientific knowledge, let alone historical, current affairs etc.; does we likewise demand lab testing for the existence of quasars?

Intentionally or not, the obvious outcome of these lines of faulty reasoning/special pleading is to define a standard of 'evidence' which only a very few things we believe ever reach and thereby exclude anything which contradicts your existing worldview: Of course your existing worldview certainly wouldn't match those standards of evidence either, but that is an uncomfortable fact best ignored and quietly avoided, I'm sure!

Obviously in this context, your claim that there is no evidence is not even 'merely' circular - it's virtually meaningless!

[Bust Nak]

So is the criterion of lab testing suggested by Bust Nak, which is not even met by all scientific knowledge, let alone historical, current affairs etc.; does we likewise demand lab testing for the existence of quasars?

For the record, yes, I do demand lab testing for the existence of quasars.

Intentionally or not, the obvious outcome of these lines of faulty reasoning/special pleading is to define a standard of 'evidence' which only a very few things we believe ever reach and thereby exclude anything which contradicts your existing worldview.

How exactly does that amount to special pleading or faulty reasoning? Does the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mean anything to you? Things don't get much more extraordinary than things that contradicts one's worldview.

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Bust Nak]

Does the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mean anything to you?

The phrase itself is reminiscent of being oxymoron.

IF
an example of an extraordinary claim is "The universe exists in the mind of a GOD"
and IF
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
THEN
The universe itself can be the only extraordinary evidence one can present, as it were.
And IF the universe cannot be regarded as 'extraordinary' the claim cannot be substantiated with this so-called 'extraordinary evidence' because such evidence would only exist outside the universe.

Therefore, the 'claim' is not a claim which can be scientifically examined in any manner, thus the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is fallacy in relation to that. The phrase implies the kind of evidence which can be measured by scientific processes while at the same time cries out for 'extraordinary, evidence', thus - therein - is the apparent oxymoron.

The so called 'extraordinary claim' "The universe exists in the mind of a GOD" is a philosophical/theistic expression, and can be explained within that context.

I trust that this explains the confusion those who demand scientific related evidence for this type of claim are undergoing, and that eventually one day maybe, the so-called 'burden of proof' idea will fade into its own ignorance and be no more.

[benchwarmer]

Does Tehran exist? Well, (a) I see the name in the news, (b) I've seen people online claiming to be from there, I can see it on (c) a map, I can see it via google earth, and if I really wanted to I could book a plane ticket and (d) go visit. In other words, there are multiple ways for me to verify it.

So what I deduce from the above illustration is that one doesn't have to have personal experience of God to be convinced he exists, in the absence of the possibility of seeing an image (ie google maps), one can base ones conviction on ...

a) seeing the name written spoken about from a source (ie the bible)

b) seeing people who claim they have personal experience of God (ie christians) and choosing to believe their "claims".

c) seeing God described in a simple way on paper (as seeing the outline of a country on a map) - see point (a)

d) believing sincerely in ones heart that taking certain measures will result in meeting that one (ie believing one could meet God by dying if one {quote} "really wanted to" {end quote}).

Sounds reasonble to me

Well, nice try at a parallel, but it's not the same.

First, (a) and (c) on your list are essentially the same. Yes, I can see a description of this god in a book.

(b) is the same as people claiming to be from Tehran. Agreed.

(d) is completely ludicrous (in my opinion). Are you suggesting I kill myself to check out if a god is really there? That seems to be the only parallel I can draw from my 'go visit and see for yourself'.

So, even given my admittedly incomplete list, your parallel list falls short. I am unable to verify a god exists and keep breathing using your criteria.

[benchwarmer]

The question then becomes 'does it matter to you personally whether GOD exists or not?"

Well, that's the same for any claim. Do you care whether the purple unicorn in my backyard exists?

At one time I did care whether the god described in the Bible exists. After extensive study (which I'm sure Christians would deem 'incomplete' because I didn't arrive at their conclusion) I found the god of the Bible to be riddled with inconsistencies and frankly ridiculous actions.

Do I care if some god concept exists? Sure, it would be nice to know. If someone can put forward one that holds up to scrutiny I would be interested. However, having been through the Christian song and dance I'm a little 'gun shy' of religious claims nowadays.

The word GOD simply refers to consciousness which is self aware, intelligent, creative and within the context of form, is limited to what it can do through the form.

I think you forgot to add "in my humble opinion" or something along those lines. It seems everyone has a different definition. Seems odd for such an important concept that so many are quite convinced about.

Or you can ignore all such possibilities and simply go shopping, get involved in politics, find your place in the world, etc.

Every thing that exists does so in the mind of GOD, so yes it could be said we exist within some sort of simulation which you are 'plugged' into in the sense that you are an aspect of that overall GOD consciousness, connected to the form you presently occupy, in relation to the environment that form is within. Form within form, but always consciousness, as the essential self determining factor.

Lots of interesting claims, but rather short on any convincing evidence.

In defining GOD correctly one can define the self better and why the self exists within the particular simulation that it does,

In relation to the 'turtles all the way down' argument, this has been laid to rest by the 'Consciousness has always and will always exist' argument. No thing made consciousness. Consciousness made every thing. No conundrum.

You're right, no conundrum. The universe has always existed in one form or another of energy. No god required. Problem solved. If there's no need to explain a god's existence, there shouldn't be a need to explain the universe's existence either. Why add a layer of complexity?

GOD exists because GOD has always existed. Things exist because GOD creates them, through a series of processes which can be visualized by observing fractals.

And you have completely missed the point. Same answer as above. No need for a god if the universe always existed.