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 149 by Bust Nak]

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.

Do you think individual subjective evidence is acceptable?

There are many ideas of GOD.

Q: Do you think that my particular idea of GOD is able to be scientifically verified?

Q: Are you under the impression that the biblical idea of GOD is something which can be scientifically verified?

Q: What do you mean by GOD? Is your idea of GOD able to be scientifically verified?

"What would constitute evidence..." and "what are some examples..." are different questions.

Are you playing the schematics game here? How is one to say what would constitute evidence if one is not going to supply examples?

The original question has been answered.

And what was the answer?

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.

How would that constitute evidence that God does exist?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 148 by Danmark]

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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this entirely. As I pointed out in post #130, scientific processes of ongoing observation and consideration of alternative hypotheses are brought to bear in cases such as the alleged 'miracle' cures at Lourdes, for example

In fact while it's now generally accepted as being so obvious that it's simply taken for granted, the surprising fact that reality tends to follow consistent patterns or 'laws' - rather than being chaotic or degenerating into different patterns/laws in different times and regions of the universe - is knowledge entirely dependent on the scientific process. That knowledge is remarkably consistent with early monotheism's concept of a universal creator and 'law-giver,' and stands in contrast to earlier polytheistic notions as well as the conceptual possibilities of chaotic or changing/degenerating patterns.

As I suggested at the start of the thread, evidence is simply the available facts and information providing context for the evaluation of hypotheses' plausibility. For hypotheses concerning the nature of reality itself, science should be the first and most important source of information we're checking against.


Of course it seems not everyone shares that view, and still think in terms of evidence for a particular point of view. And in that case I think what this thread has highlighted is that:
1 - Evidentiary criteria are somewhat subjective, in that what one person considers 'sufficient' evidence to flip their apparently binary state of 'belief' will not always be the same as another person's. For example, when and to what extent do we acknowledge the evidentiary value of other people's experiences? To some extent these differences of opinion are inevitable and therefore acceptable, but it undermines the would-be "more intellectual than thou" attitudes sometimes seen from folk who have made their subjective decision to hold higher evidentiary standards in the case of theism. But more importantly...

2 - Theism (usually?) seems to be subjected inconsistent/special pleading evidentiary criteria, as I commented to Inigo Montoya in post #147 and others earlier in the thread: "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." Even the stark contrast between nominally accepting third-party reports from the media but rejecting them wholesale in the cases of reported 'spiritual' experience suggests such a discrepancy.

[Inigo Montoya]

Boys, I wrote a crazy long reply. Took me a good half hour. Then the old laptop shat the bed and it's gone. All gone.

William..

You're free to take something we know exists, despite any shortcomings we have in understanding it fully (consciousness), and then simply call it GOD. I can do something similar with taco salads, especially if you agree they exist as well. But it doesn't answer anything, expand any knowledge, or do anything to verify the claim that a prime mover (basically what you're calling First Source Consciousness) is valid or even necessary. Perhaps I'm missing the part where you say this is a faith based position that just happens to resonate with your spiritual tastes.


Mithrae...

I think I follow you. Whilst I'd quibble with plenty, I appreciate the spirit. When the ding dang laptop is revived, we can dance for the sake of exercise. Until then, educate me on the nature of Australian wildlife and why it all wants to kill us.

[KenRU]

[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.

Yes. Is that an unreasonable assumption on my part, given the worldwide influence religion has in our lives today and for over a thousand years?

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.

Sort of. My point is that those who say god exists, should be able to show evidence that they speak the truth because it is REASONABLE given what their holy books say.

If a car salesman is offering to sell you a car, it is reasonable to ask to see the car.

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

Because I say it will?

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?

I may not. So? The OP is asking if it would be evidence. It would be, for me. That should suffice, no?

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'.

Is it possible the evidence is the result of an advance civilization, sure. But if I believed it is evidence of god, then it suffices for the purposes of the OP.

So, I await the evidence of god (as happens in the holy books) or of alien tech that fools me into thinking it is a god from the holy books, lol.

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.

No, it is more accurate to say that my expectation of what god should be able to do is determined by what he is purported to do by the various holy books that depict him.

What we know about god comes from our imagination and/or (I’ll let the readers decide which) the holy books that talk about god.

As far as a god that I know nothing of? Sure, then the sky is the limit for what possible skills he may or may not have. But that is an irrelevant conversation, imo. It is fruitless and does nothing to advance the conversation about the current religious assertions being made.

I find it much more relevant and pointed to discuss the current assertions being made by religions, in the context of the OP. Don’t you?

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.

You can only assert this if you are discounting what is being told in the holy books. Are you?

But even still, we can both be right. In YOUR (and possibly my) estimation, it may just very well be more advance science. Or it MAY NOT be, we would have no way of knowing.

So it may be evidence, for me and possibly you as well. We couldn’t know, by your own admission. So, I get to decide, as I said originally if it is evidence or not. Agreed?

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?

I’m not saying that, because no such example exists, and for you to make that correlation, YOU would have to leave open the possibility that today’s magicians are doing actual magic. I don't. Are you?

Otherwise, the point is valid. The car salesman must show that he has something to sell.

[Bust Nak]

Do you think individual subjective evidence is acceptable?

No.

Q: Do you think that my particular idea of GOD is able to be scientifically verified?

Can't answer that until I know your particular idea of GOD.

Q: Are you under the impression that the biblical idea of GOD is something which can be scientifically verified?

Yes.

Q: What do you mean by GOD?

A super powerful personal being who cares about humanity.

Is your idea of GOD able to be scientifically verified?

Yes.

Are you playing the schematics game here?

No.

How is one to say what would constitute evidence if one is not going to supply examples?

By saying exactly what constitute evidence, consider the following questions: What are fruits - the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food; and what are some example of fruits - apples and oranges.

And what was the answer?

I first answered it back in post#33, and repeated just for you in post #123. This is the third time I've answered that question (and the second time directly in response to you): "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." I know you saw it the first time round, as you responded to it earlier. Is there a particular reason for this forgetfulness?

How would that constitute evidence that God does exist?

A god is granting them insight that he does not grant to non-Christian. Was that not obvious?

[William]

[Replying to post 148 by Danmark]

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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this entirely. As I pointed out in post #130, scientific processes of ongoing observation and consideration of alternative hypotheses are brought to bear in cases such as the alleged 'miracle' cures at Lourdes, for example

Yes I am aware of your post Mithrae, but fail to see wherein alleged 'miracle' cures at Lourdes constitute evidence that GOD does exist.

In fact while it's now generally accepted as being so obvious that it's simply taken for granted, the surprising fact that reality tends to follow consistent patterns or 'laws' - rather than being chaotic or degenerating into different patterns/laws in different times and regions of the universe - is knowledge entirely dependent on the scientific process. That knowledge is remarkably consistent with early monotheism's concept of a universal creator and 'law-giver,' and stands in contrast to earlier polytheistic notions as well as the conceptual possibilities of chaotic or changing/degenerating patterns.

Even so, how does that constitute evidence that GOD does exist. How does it even provide evidence that monotheistic ideas of GOD are correct?

As I suggested at the start of the thread, evidence is simply the available facts and information providing context for the evaluation of hypotheses' plausibility. For hypotheses concerning the nature of reality itself, science should be the first and most important source of information we're checking against.

Of course. But your argument is that GOD can be scientifically 'found to exist.' and in that you appear to be entirely certain. Yet the evidence you have so far mentioned - while suggestive of an invisible creative intelligence interacting with its creation, altogether points to the likelihood that GOD exists rather than 'is found to exist'.
There is a difference.

Of course it seems not everyone shares that view, and still think in terms of evidence for a particular point of view. And in that case I think what this thread has highlighted is that:
1 - Evidentiary criteria are somewhat subjective, in that what one person considers 'sufficient' evidence to flip their apparently binary state of 'belief' will not always be the same as another person's. For example, when and to what extent do we acknowledge the evidentiary value of other people's experiences? To some extent these differences of opinion are inevitable and therefore acceptable, but it undermines the would-be "more intellectual than thou" attitudes sometimes seen from folk who have made their subjective decision to hold higher evidentiary standards in the case of theism.

From the position of Panenthism, it does not matter how individuals see or do not see GOD because the nature of the universe prevents this from being a certainty for all humans anyway - but what is understood is that all human beings are aspects of GOD consciousness whether they 'know' this or not and in that, while their individual experiences through this phase of the path of rehabilitation may not induce them to do more that a cursory investigation (if that) or may induce them embracing a cursory idea of GOD in the interim, eventually each individual will find their way back home as it were. That is the end-game of the rehabilitation process.

But more importantly...

2 - Theism (usually?) seems to be subjected inconsistent/special pleading evidentiary criteria, as I commented to Inigo Montoya in post #147 and others earlier in the thread: "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." Even the stark contrast between nominally accepting third-party reports from the media but rejecting them wholesale in the cases of reported 'spiritual' experience suggests such a discrepancy.

Of course.

This is an entirely expected reaction to what is talking place on this prison planet. Theism cannot provide clear evidence of GODs existence and in that, atheism declares there is no GOD to believe in so there is no reason to life on earth in this universe, other than whatever reason individual humans place on their existence - because at least their existence is evidence of something.
It is exactly what one would expect from GOD consciousness in the form of human beings, suppressed into this reality membrane and left to work/sort it out for themselves.

Theism has always been punctuated with acts done in the name of GOD and perpetrated by evil individuals, often working together in groups/gangs and this is understandable in the context of prison mentality and the need to position oneself in places of power and influence over the other prisoners.

This in turn has given the ideas of GOD a bad name, and GOD obviously allows for this to occur without interfering in the process any more than It has to, and even in that - how GOD interferes is still oblique enough not to leave too much evidence lying around which will be used for continued conflict between the inmates.

I do not even think that this is 'stage one' of the rehabilitation process, but whatever stage we are currently occupied with, there are more stages to go 'afterlife.'

The evidence for this narration regarding why we are here on this planet, is found in the fact of the matter, the human reaction to the fact of the matter, and the subsequent and the natural enough response of the environment to the human reaction to the fact of the matter.

And GOD, of course, but GOD is so many different 'things' to so many different theists and lets face it, the GOD of Abraham Issac Jacob Jesus and Muhammad is a bad idea dressed in good intentions.

As a Panentheist, I see GOD as many expressions of consciousness, and I see the expressions of consciousness in many forms, including the form of the Earth and the evidence of that is in the fact of biological life forms popping out in their myriad variety from the planet itself.

So I see in that - in the Earth Entity, the local GOD but it is not the form which is the GOD but the creative intelligence working through the form which is the GOD.

Even so - I also see that, like each of us, the Earth Entity is also an aspect of a vaster consciousness which pervades the entire universe. That is GOD, the Earth Entity is GOD and you and I and everyone else is GOD - not on our own - but collectively.
GOD is not separated by the forms it occupies. That is our illusion to deal with.

And collective we are GOD confused as to what would constitute evidence that God does exist.

Do you think the overall GOD consciousness pervading the universe is confused about what would constitute evidence that God does exist?
Do you think the Earth Entity is confused about what would constitute evidence that God does exist?

I don't think so myself. I think it is us who are confused, and I also think that we don't actually need to be, only thousands of years of bickering about the mystery have dug us all a hole that very few are able to climb out of.

So yes - I understand the point you are making regarding atheistic bias, as I understand why the bias exists, as I also understand why it is not something worthy of argument as I understand the evidence that is all around me show me plainly enough that I am part of that evidence that GOD does exist.

But I understand that at present - the human situation - the level of the human situation - is cause for confusion and understandable in that context. The nature of GOD is such that we have to each, in our own good time, work it out, and provision for this has been made. We will all get there in the end. And in that, we will discover a new beginning. Ad infinitum.

Yes - I have taken the opportunity to inject Panentheism into the mix in relation to the idea of GOD. As much as you might complain that atheism, materialism, naturalism, determinism, humanism, secularism tend to ignore the Abrahamic idea of 'what GOD is', Christendom generally ignores the Panentheist Idea of GOD in a similar manner...so all things being equal...

[William]

[Replying to post 154 by KenRU]

Yes. Is that an unreasonable assumption on my part, given the worldwide influence religion has in our lives today and for over a thousand years?

Probably, yes. Given the reputation, why would anyone reasonably expect an honest answer from that institution? Indeed, it seems clear enough to me that there is no real (honest) expectation that any evidence of such nature would come from that. So the demand does not even consist of the expectation that the demand would be meet, thus - it IS an unreasonable assumption in that it it doesn't even assume the demand can be meet but has the pretext that it can.

In that, it is clearly a dishonest demand.

I would never demand such evidence from that institution, because I know they are unable to provide such evidence and it would dishonest of me to demand anything when I know it cannot be delivered.

Sort of. My point is that those who say god exists, should be able to show evidence that they speak the truth because it is REASONABLE given what their holy books say.

That would be true IF you actually believed in what those holy books had to say. But you don't do you?
All the evidence you can hope to find through that process is that people believe in stories which they - unlike you - don't demand evidence the stories are true before believing in them. That in itself is here nor there in relation to whether GOD exists any more than the stories - if true and if demonstrated to you, would constitute evidence that GOD exists. Not scientific evidence anyway, but subjective evidence which apparently would be enough to convince you to believe in the idea of the GOD of the Bible.
I say that GOD exists, but my position is Panenthistic - and in that there is no holy book with questionable stories in them.

If a car salesman is offering to sell you a car, it is reasonable to ask to see the car.

Are you wanting to believe the biblical GOD exists? If so, why?
[If you were wanting to buy a car I would understand without having to ask, why (in the general sense) you would want to do so.]

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

Because I say it will?

In other words, your subjective experience regarding this will be enough to convince you that the biblical idea of GOD is the one you can say is 'GOD'?

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?

I may not. So? The OP is asking if it would be evidence. It would be, for me. That should suffice, no?

Would it? You are arguing for subjective evidence being enough for you. [However, you also seem to be arguing that the subjective evidence of others is not good enough.]

You will still have the problem of convincing others the same thing because they want objective evidence. They can say that what you believe in as evidence that GOD exists is just evidence of a far older and knowledgeable species using science in order to convince you that they are GOD.

Is it possible the evidence is the result of an advance civilization, sure. But if I believed it is evidence of god, then it suffices for the purposes of the OP.

True - because the OP hasn't distinguished between subjective and objective evidence.
However, the OP was instigated from another debate which WAS centered on the argument of objective evidence - evidence which could be scientifically processed and through that would constitute evidence that God does exist.

No, it is more accurate to say that my expectation of what god should be able to do is determined by what he is purported to do by the various holy books that depict him.

So you are limiting the idea of GOD to how one idea of GOD is purported to being?
How is that even sensible?

What we know about god comes from our imagination and/or (I’ll let the readers decide which) the holy books that talk about god.

I would say that these are some of the sources. Another source I find even more relevant is the nature of the universe, and in particular, what has and is happening on the planet.

As far as a god that I know nothing of? Sure, then the sky is the limit for what possible skills he may or may not have. But that is an irrelevant conversation, imo. It is fruitless and does nothing to advance the conversation about the current religious assertions being made.

There is no 'advancing the conversation' by remaining stuck within those parameters. Thousands of years of arguing show this to be the case. it is like unto a looped program and looped programs cannot advance, because it is the nature of the coding of the algorithms which keep it in the loop. It is merely a contest of egos content to remain within the constructs of the program. Attention is given only to one particular organised religions version of 'what GOD is' and the attention acts as an indication to those who believe in such, that they are correct to believe in such. So they defend their belief and see the opposition as indicative that they are on the right track - some even refer to this opposition as 'persecution' which in turn allows them to dig their heals in and believe that their beliefs are legitimate because of the 'persecution'.

Therefore you are contributing to the beliefs others have in this idea of GOD simply by focusing upon it, as if it were somehow - as you would seem to want to put it - 'fruitful' and 'does something to advance conversation' about 'current religious assertions being made'. Only these assertions are not'current' at all. They derive from ancient sources.

I find it much more relevant and pointed to discuss the current assertions being made by religions, in the context of the OP. Don’t you?

Of course not. I think that should be obvious. The context of the OP is something which - as I have mentioned a number of times - derives from another discussion regarding scientifically variable evidence to do with the existence of GOD.

You can only assert this if you are discounting what is being told in the holy books. Are you?

Yes. Because what is written is hearsay and cannot be verified using current scientific process. (as far as I am aware anyway.)
But if the inclusion of subjective evidence is acceptable as well, then no. I can consider the hearsay as stories but not subjective evidence, but even so would not think that as any reason to demand those who believe in such as 'evidence' need to display similar miracles into this world to help me to believe what they believe. The reasons I do not believe what they believe have nothing to do with supposed miracles, and evidence which might be shown if they could repeat those supposed miracles would not convince me their beliefs are truthful.
I do not discount the stories in the holy books as being utterly rubbish, just because some or even many of the stories seem far too invented to be actual narrative of real situations which really occurred. For me, such stories are parable which point to deeper meaningful significance - metaphor. I see the Earth Entity within the frameworks.

But even still, we can both be right. In YOUR (and possibly my) estimation, it may just very well be more advance science. Or it MAY NOT be, we would have no way of knowing.

Precisely. Thus "What would constitute evidence that GOD does exist"?

So it may be evidence, for me and possibly you as well. We couldn’t know, by your own admission. So, I get to decide, as I said originally if it is evidence or not. Agreed?

Yes - as long as you agree that your decision is based on subjective evidence, I certainly can agree. I would even accept your right to decide for yourself. But I would not have to accept that what you choose to decide to believe about GOD is something which would constitute scientific evidence that God does exist. You good with that?

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?

I’m not saying that, because no such example exists, and for you to make that correlation, YOU would have to leave open the possibility that today’s magicians are doing actual magic. I don't. Are you?

I think that all magic tricks by magicians are theoretically able to be explained scientifically. However, this is not the actual case so I have to allow for the possibility that perhaps indeed, they are using 'real' magic and if so then we would be existing in a world more akin to the Matrix universe (as per the movies) and magicians of that quality are using some knowledge non- accessible to ordinary citizens and doing so in order to create the idea that they are simply very clever at what they do so that we do not really believe they are doing actual magic and thus are less tempted to investigate the possibility we exist inside the Matrix.

In this, they act as gatekeepers, keeping people from exiting the matrix through that method.

We don't know if magicians of that caliber are doing actual magic or not, because scientists do not go there to investigate on our behalf, and excuses itself from having to on the grounds that 1: It can be assumed such illusions are indeed extremely clever tricks because 'the laws of physics' {the rules/algorithms of the Matrix) and 2: the incomes of the magicians will be affected if scientists were to explain to everyone how the so-called illusions are performed. 3: Lots of humans love to be entertained by so-called illusions and scientists needn't pop their bubbles as long as those humans don't actually believe the illusions are real.

Which follows the spiral arm of thought that miracles/magic within the stories of the holy books should be able to be repeated by scientific process and replicated, just as surely as magicians illusion should be able to be explained in the same manner.

But then again, scientific process isn't magic is it? Which leads back to the argument that what appears to be magic can also be explained as possibly being some unknown science used by a highly advanced species wishing to give the impression that they are GOD.

So effectively one can 'wander down that path', but inevitably that path loops back to connect with the main road again. So to speak.

Otherwise, the point is valid. The car salesman must show that he has something to sell.

But are you genuinely wanting to buy a car? That is the real question. Perhaps you are, and you find the salesman is iffy at best in his techniques and perhaps also the cars on the lot are simply not what you are looking for anyway. So why persist, if this is the case?

[William]

[Replying to post 155 by Bust Nak]

Can't answer that until I know your particular idea of GOD.

The opportunity to know my particular idea can be found in my members notes.

Specifically in these two threads.

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

Q: Are you under the impression that the biblical idea of GOD is something which can be scientifically verified?

Yes

Please explain how this can be done.

Q: What do you mean by GOD?

A super powerful personal being who cares about humanity.

In observing nature through the event of life on earth, is there evidence of this 'super powerful personal being who cares about humanity'?

Q: Is your idea of GOD able to be scientifically verified?

Yes.

In observing nature through the event of life on earth, is there evidence of this 'super powerful personal being who cares about humanity' which can be scientifically verified?

Q: How is one to say what would constitute evidence if one is not going to supply examples?

By saying exactly what constitute evidence, consider the following questions: What are fruits - the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food; and what are some example of fruits - apples and oranges.

Thus the question is:
What are fruits?

Thus the example related to answering the question is:
"Fruits are the fleshy product of a plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food;"

Thus the evidence is:
That which fits the description in the example, and is produced/exhibited as actual physical evidence of the example.

I first answered it back in post#33, and repeated just for you in post #123. This is the third time I've answered that question (and the second time directly in response to you): "Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment." I know you saw it the first time round, as you responded to it earlier. Is there a particular reason for this forgetfulness?

It is not a case of forgetfulness. It is a case of not seeing a need in repeating myself to every poster. Call it an attempt at being efficient.

Point being, I think it better to reply to posters who have obviously put thought into their replies and their replies are fleshed out as a necessity to this subject. Your replies in contrast, are single words, or perhaps a line or two.

Your 'fruit' analogy was worth showing what the differences are between examples and actual evidence, only you appear to think the evidence is in the speaking of the fruit and I say the speaking of the fruit is more the example, and the evidence is the showing of the fruit

In that light my questions regarding showing of the evidence of GOD, pertain not only to my own idea of what GOD is, but even to your own idea of what GOD is...

Your idea of what GOD is, as an example is:

A super powerful personal being who cares about humanity.

In relation to that example, you also say that such can be shown/verified through scientific.

So - in effect - you have given an example of the fruit, but where have you shown the fruit to be real?

"A super powerful personal being who cares about humanity" doesn't even imply that such a being can be shown through scientific process, to exist.

A god is granting them insight that he does not grant to non-Christian. Was that not obvious?

But all that this implies is that in order for you to receive the same, you would have to become a Christian first. Then you will be granted the insight.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 158 by William]

Maybe it just me, but Pantheism does not prove God anyore than the OP.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 159 by Willum]



God is essentially consciousness. The totality of human consciousness.

Consciousness exists, therefore God exists.

That's what I'm getting anyhow.