What empirical evidence could there be for God?

[Haven]

In my years of debating God's existence (both as an evangelical Christian and an atheist), I have heard countless philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), Anselm's Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument, among others, all seek to establish God's existence through the use of pure logic and reasoning. However, I have yet to see a Christian put forth an empirical case for God's existence (empirical, in this case, means physical, testable, analyzable by science). In fact, I don't feel that it is even possible, in principle, to put forth an empirical argument for God's existence, because of the common properties assigned to God (i.e., omnipresence, omniscience, timelessness, etc.).

So, for the debate question: What empirical evidence could there be for God? How would we discover this evidence? How could we determine it pointed to a God rather than a naturalistic entity?

For the sake of this discussion, a definition of God:

(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."
(

[TheJackelantern]

So, has God been disproven or totally destroyed by the majority on this forum? I'm just curious as to what the intended outcome of this particular topic is supposed to be. Is it intended to mock or to belittle those who choose to believe in a deity coupled with the hope of eternal life despite the lack of impirical evidence available? Or, is it intended to convert those who presently believe in God and eternal life to the equally religious but devoid of hope concept of "life basically has no meaning and when we die we die?"

The Pantheist GOD exists empirically.. I fail to see your point..

[Flail]

So, has God been disproven or totally destroyed by the majority on this forum? I'm just curious as to what the intended outcome of this particular topic is supposed to be. Is it intended to mock or to belittle those who choose to believe in a deity coupled with the hope of eternal life despite the lack of impirical evidence available? Or, is it intended to convert those who presently believe in God and eternal life to the equally religious but devoid of hope concept of "life basically has no meaning and when we die we die?"

No intent to mock or belittle on my part, nor do I have an intention to convert; only to debate and offer my thoughts, ideas, opinions and arguments.

Life has great and deep meaning for me, not the least of which is contemplating whether there is or is not a God; so far I have not found one, but this has not prevented me from gleaning meaning from philosophy including religions of many types. As to what happens to us, if anything, when or after we die, I have no idea, but I don't think it does anyone any good to settle for guesswork, especially when it is divisive; best to keep an open mind and to remain skeptical of those whose minds are 'closed'.

[Artie]

We are talking about evidence for God here. What exactly do you want that will "substantiate and validate" his existence? Do you expect him to come and knock on your door and introduce himself to you?

Well, at least Jesus has come back. http://www.divinetruth.com/# But remember before you join Him, don't ask Him for something that will "substantiate and validate" and provide evidence that He is who He says He is before you follow Him. Then you would be doing what atheists do.

[Artie]

If there is language in the Koran in which God is characterized as, to quote haven's debate topic,
(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."

then I would be more than willing to further investigae the Koran. This is, once again, the argument I am making for the Bible. It has all of this language contained with it.

So basically you have an idea how your god is supposed to be like, then follow a list of what the book you are going to believe in is supposed to say about your god and then believe in the book because it tells you what you want to hear?

[Haven]

So basically you have an idea how your god is supposed to be like, then make up a list of what the book you are going to believe in is supposed to say about your god and then believe in the book because it tells you what you want to hear?

That list of five points was originally posted by me, not spayne; he was simply using them to advance an argument.

I used those five points to represent what a majority of theists believe about God, however, they are by no means an all-encompassing definition of theistic belief or the purported attributes of god(s).

[Artie]

So basically you have an idea how your god is supposed to be like, then make up a list of what the book you are going to believe in is supposed to say about your god and then believe in the book because it tells you what you want to hear?

That list of five points was originally posted by me, not spayne; he was simply using them to advance an argument.

I used those five points to represent what a majority of theists believe about God, however, they are by no means an all-encompassing definition of theistic belief or the purported attributes of god(s).

I noticed my error and corrected to "follow a list".

[earl]

In my years of debating God's existence (both as an evangelical Christian and an atheist), I have heard countless philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), Anselm's Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Moral Argument, among others, all seek to establish God's existence through the use of pure logic and reasoning. However, I have yet to see a Christian put forth an empirical case for God's existence (empirical, in this case, means physical, testable, analyzable by science). In fact, I don't feel that it is even possible, in principle, to put forth an empirical argument for God's existence, because of the common properties assigned to God (i.e., omnipresence, omniscience, timelessness, etc.).

So, for the debate question: What empirical evidence could there be for God? How would we discover this evidence? How could we determine it pointed to a God rather than a naturalistic entity?

For the sake of this discussion, a definition of God:

(1) A single, supernatural being that created our universe
(2) A personal mind with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and plans
(3) A maximally benevolent, morally righteous entity
(4) An omnipresent, omniscient entity
(5) An eternal being, the "first cause" of reality."
(

Emperical evidence-is not this the outcome of the physical observations only.God is Spirit.
Discover this (physical)evidence-not discoverable in the physical .God is Spirit .
How can we determine...etc.Cannot make a determination for or against with the attempt with physical sciences.Physical sciences cannot be applied to Spiritual .There are no tools with science to test Spirit.God is Spirit.
It is a catagorical mistake to think one with science is able to test Spirit.Science is able to only test that which is physical,not spiritual.Science is not a field of the study of Spirit.

[Artie]

Emperical evidence-is not this the outcome of the physical observations only.God is Spirit.
Discover this (physical)evidence-not discoverable in the physical .God is Spirit .
How can we determine...etc.Cannot make a determination for or against with the attempt with physical sciences.Physical sciences cannot be applied to Spiritual .There are no tools with science to test Spirit.God is Spirit.
It is a catagorical mistake to think one with science is able to test Spirit.Science is able to only test that which is physical,not spiritual.Science is not a field of the study of Spirit.

If scientific measuring devices can't be applied to Spirit then Spirit can't affect the physical universe because it's effect would have been picked up by scientific measuring devices. Spirit might just as well not exist.

[Flail]

Emperical evidence-is not this the outcome of the physical observations only.God is Spirit.
Discover this (physical)evidence-not discoverable in the physical .God is Spirit .
How can we determine...etc.Cannot make a determination for or against with the attempt with physical sciences.Physical sciences cannot be applied to Spiritual .There are no tools with science to test Spirit.God is Spirit.
It is a catagorical mistake to think one with science is able to test Spirit.Science is able to only test that which is physical,not spiritual.Science is not a field of the study of Spirit.

If scientific measuring devices can't be applied to Spirit then Spirit can't affect the physical universe because it's effect would have been picked up by scientific measuring devices. Spirit might just as well not exist.

Agreed. I am ignostic as to spirits in the same way I am ignostic as to 'God'; we have no ability to coherently define either entity, let alone have any way to discern if some 'form' of them exists. Debating the existence or non-existence of spirits is as meaningless as debating the existence or non-existence of 'God'.

[earl]

Emperical evidence-is not this the outcome of the physical observations only.God is Spirit.
Discover this (physical)evidence-not discoverable in the physical .God is Spirit .
How can we determine...etc.Cannot make a determination for or against with the attempt with physical sciences.Physical sciences cannot be applied to Spiritual .There are no tools with science to test Spirit.God is Spirit.
It is a catagorical mistake to think one with science is able to test Spirit.Science is able to only test that which is physical,not spiritual.Science is not a field of the study of Spirit.

If scientific measuring devices can't be applied to Spirit then Spirit can't affect the physical universe because it's effect would have been picked up by scientific measuring devices. Spirit might just as well not exist.

You must then know something of how Spirit may function in saying,"... then spirit can't effect the physical universe because it's effects would have been picked up by scientific measuring devices".
I understand you are saying that effects of Spirit upon the universe should be scientifically measurable if existant when/if Spirit influences the universe.
Is there any science or scientific law that states that Spirit must give off a signature or effect when influencing the physical universe?
How do you know that an "effect"from Spirit influence should manifest it's presence?
How do you know that Spirit can't affect the physical universeunless science can discover Spirit?