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 70 by Bust Nak]

That's only enough to know that one mind exist.

This is really the essence of Pantheism. The one mind is GOD. It is what constitutes evidence that God does exist.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 71 by William]

In which case you are God and I am a figment of your imagination. Do you believe that?

[McCulloch]

The Atheist refuse to see God and they remain hidden in their own dugouts and they treat the subject of God as their commandment = that an Atheist must never look out to see because they are more comfortable by not knowing what is going on all around them.

This atheist doesn't 'refuse' to see God, this atheist just plain doesn't see God, in the exact same way that I don't see a dragon or Lord Voldemort or Darth Vader.
[…]
You will find from myself and others on this site, numerous requests for evidence that actually proves your god is real.
Typically we don't get that. We get references to the Bible, or being told to pray, or being told to just have faith.
At no point in my life, and I am not being hyperbolic here, have I ever encountered someone who said "Do this to see if God exists, and if you come back with a negative result, then it means that what I suggested for you to do was erroneous".

This exchange is so relevant to the current debate.

[ttruscott]

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

The Bible can be seen to support the view that seeing the creation of the physical universe before their very eyes did in fact prove to all creation in HIS image that HE was divine with a divine power.

Job 38:7 asserts that people, the sons of GOD, were there at that event and sang HIS praises. Using this fact to interpret Rom 1:20 as referring to the creation of the physical universe and we have a universal proof to all of HIS existence. The result of course is that sinners repressed that proof because they loved their sin more than the truth.

The evidentiary value of these verses about HIS existence range in people's minds from fully proven, to supporting evidence, to non-credible evidence, to absolutely meaningless as evidence of anything let alone HIS existence.

The acceptance of an artifact of thought, story or object is indeed personal and is vetted by each person's mind set filters.

[Danmark]

By contrast mind-body dualism supposes that while the body is a spatial entity, the mind does not have even that property. "Dualism is closely associated with the thought of René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance." It is impossible to even conceive how an entity which does not exist in space/is not composed of a spatial substance, could interact with the properties of a spatial entity.

HERE, I agree with you. And this is pivotal. These two 'substances' cannot interact, could not interact. And this is the very point, or rather a larger point:

The body and the entire physical universe, including the thoughts the physical brain produces, is actual. It is real. It can be observed. The 'mind' does not exist. It is a fictional creation, like heaven, god, and goblins. Mind/body dualism was invented to try to explain something we did not understand, consciousness. 'Mind' is just an idea, not a 'substance.'

Pink, invisible unicorns, like angels and demons, do not, and have never, interacted with real animals. That there are fictional accounts of such imaginary creatures does not change the fact they do not exist; therefore, they cannot interact with us.

This is why the question in the OP, "What would constitute evidence that God does exist," is, 'nothing.' There IS no evidence God exists. There can't be. 'God' is a fictional concept to try to give humans the illusion they can control nature, AND to help them cope with the horror of their inevitable nonexistence. Our own nonexistence is almost unimaginable. It is unacceptable. So, we created a work around, a belief in an afterlife.

[Danmark]

The Atheist refuse to see God and they remain hidden in their own dugouts and they treat the subject of God as their commandment = that an Atheist must never look out to see because they are more comfortable by not knowing what is going on all around them.

This is a mere claim, and a likely projection. Atheists certainly "look out to see." Many, if not most, atheists are naturalists and/or scientists. The opposite of what you claim is true. Atheists, at least the ones who appreciate science, are NOT comfortable not knowing what is going on in the world. They are natural born explorers and experimenters, willing to accept even surprising facts if that is where the evidence takes them.
If you told me there are frogs which actually break their bones (or a part of their bony tissue) and their skin to make claws emerge from their feet/hands. I would have doubted you... until I looked for evidence:

Trichobatrachus robustus actively breaks its own bones to produce claws that puncture their way out of the frog’s toe pads, probably when it is threatened.
David Blackburn and colleagues at Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, think the gruesome behaviour is a defence mechanism.
The researchers say there are salamanders that force their ribs through their skin to produce protective barbs on demand, but nothing quite like this mechanism has been seen before.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... uce-claws/

[William]

[Replying to post 71 by William]

In which case you are God and I am a figment of your imagination.

I am an aspect of GOD and so are you. We are not figments of GODs imagination.

Your one-liner replies show that you seem unable to grasp what is being said regarding the subject. Perhaps if you were to make your replies a bit more comprehensive one might be able to better understand what you are suggesting. Also, quoting someone out of context and speaking to that is something of a cross between making a straw-man and shifting the goal-posts. Either way it serves to potentially distract away from contextual relevance, which is something I find is worth avoiding.

[William]

The Atheist refuse to see God and they remain hidden in their own dugouts and they treat the subject of God as their commandment = that an Atheist must never look out to see because they are more comfortable by not knowing what is going on all around them.

This atheist doesn't 'refuse' to see God, this atheist just plain doesn't see God, in the exact same way that I don't see a dragon or Lord Voldemort or Darth Vader.
[…]
You will find from myself and others on this site, numerous requests for evidence that actually proves your god is real.
Typically we don't get that. We get references to the Bible, or being told to pray, or being told to just have faith.
At no point in my life, and I am not being hyperbolic here, have I ever encountered someone who said "Do this to see if God exists, and if you come back with a negative result, then it means that what I suggested for you to do was erroneous".

This exchange is so relevant to the current debate.

No it isn't. There a gaping holes on both sides of the argument.

[William]

[Replying to post 74 by ttruscott]

The Bible can be seen to support the view that seeing the creation of the physical universe before their very eyes did in fact prove to all creation in HIS image that HE was divine with a divine power.

Once upon a time a place full of sleeping beings existed. One of the beings woke up and, looking around, was amazed. Eventually the other beings slowly awoke and the first being told them that he was their creator and the creator of all their existence and some of them believed him and others did not.

This caused a schism so intense that the beings started fighting and killing one another, only - even when they died, the simply came back to life again, and the first being to awaken took credit for that as well.

Meanwhile other beings outside of that tragic comedy slowly shook their heads and flicked channels to see if they might find something a bit more interesting to watch and learn from.

The End.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 74 by ttruscott]

The Bible can be seen to support the view that seeing the creation of the physical universe before their very eyes did in fact prove to all creation in HIS image that HE was divine with a divine power.

Once upon a time a place full of sleeping beings existed. One of the beings woke up and, looking around, was amazed. Eventually the other beings slowly awoke and the first being told them that he was their creator and the creator of all their existence and some of them believed him and others did not.

This caused a schism so intense that the beings started fighting and killing one another, only - even when they died, the simply came back to life again, and the first being to awaken took credit for that as well.

Meanwhile other beings outside of that tragic comedy slowly shook their heads and flicked channels to see if they might find something a bit more interesting to watch and learn from.

The End.

A prime example of the twitter game, #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly in which users attempt to describe the story of a movie in such broad strokes that it points to the socially unacceptable or contemptible behavior of the characters.

Well done...though it has nothing to do with my scenario in the least.