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."
(

[spayne]

This is why I said what I did about worldview.

So, you can't support your beliefs with evidence? Then how can you say they are the objective truth?

For the Christian the Bible is empirical evidence that God exists.

That is circular reasoning. The truth of the Bible is contingent upon its congruence with reality. There is no way to determine the accuracy of the Bible without appealing to outside evidence.

No amount of outside evidence is going to be enough for you.

Try me.

Within the context of this debate topic, I believe I have answered all five of the proofs that were put forth. I have no obligagtion to present something outside of the Bible because I stated what the empirical evidence is and where it comes from. If you want more evidence that this is true, then read the Bible yourself.

You, of course, are under no obligation to provide any information. However, I see literally no reason to believe the Bible is true without corroborating evidence.

I've read the Bible from cover to cover, many times over. I know that, while it is (for the most part) beautiful literature, it is chock full of mistakes, errors, mistranslations, myths, and fabrications.

And before you do, make sure and pray this something like this:

Heavenly Father,
I have a desire to know the truth. I want to know if there really is a God who created all things. So Lord if you exist, and you have revealed yourself to the world through the Holy Scriptures, I pray that you would reveal yourself to me as I read the Bible. Amen

I've prayed that prayer several times during my seeking/deconversion process (which took over a year). Silence. Evidence. Atheism. In that order.

Okay so I have a question. You posted a debate topic in which you seemed to be reasonably curious about how we can determine to know God by finding empirical evidence of his existence. And you listed five different definitions of God.

I responded with what I believed to be a compelling answer regarding the truth of God in scripture, in that it holds within it the five different definitions of God that you yourself wrote in the description. I then told you two things: 1) that for the Christian, the Bible is empirical evidence for God, and 2) that our own worldviews ultimately define what we see or do not see as evidence.

So here is my question: are you really interested in receiving a range of responses to your question or openminded enough to consider that perhaps the Bible IS evidence for God, or are you just trying to get a rise out of the Christians here? Because as far as I can tell, I have answered your question pretty honestly, regardless of whether or not you like the response. And with all due respect, you aren't really offering a whole lot of insight with your answers.

At the very least, perhaps you might like to respond to the statement that the Bible contains within it verses that address all five of the characteristics of God you mentioned in your debate topic. Doesn't that intrigue you? If you were really open to hearing what people had to say, I would think it would.

[spayne]

No amount of outside evidence is going to be enough for you.

GOD himself might help with that.. Pantheists proved to me that their GOD exists.. So what's your excuse? Other than that, you are right. Why? Well if you point to a rabbit, I will tell you that is only evidence of the rabbits existence. If you point to the Universe, well, that's only evidence of the Universe's existence. Hence, where is that GOD of yours? So yeah, you need to be specific of what evidence you are talking about here. Evidence that can actually substantiate and validate the existence of your supposed deity.

Example:

For the Christian the Bible is empirical evidence that God exists.

This is only evidence of a book... So is this evidence of pixie fairies?:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog? ... CHEQ8wIwAg

I ALREADY was specific about the evidence in my former responses. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it is somehow less valid.

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?

The bottom line is this: If you have a worldview that is openminded and openhearted enough to believe in the existence of God, you will find the revelation of His character in the Bible, and in the person of Jesus Christ. Millions upon millions of people have been doing this for centuries. And if your worldview is not openminded and openhearted enough to believe in God, no amount of evidence offered to you is ever going to be enough.

[Flying Tiger Comics]

"Depends what you mean by God."

A god you can directly experience through prayer is only as far away as a trance or fugue state - or a cigar laden with DMT.

But there are many fallacies in this sort of discussion, not the least of which is that far from one side having the inerrancy and the other the total rational knowledge, no side of these debates, in my now long and weary experience of them, does more than advance a religiously held aetiology.

All the nonsense about the big bang, geological dating, carbon dating and the like is on no firmer ground, and excludes as much evidence contra, as any rabid christian dark ager I've ever encountered.

It comes down, in the case of God experiences, to empiricism and analysis, but unfortunately, it also reduces to the border of the extended and unextended senses. As fatuous and silly as it seems to some, there really is no getting past the individual nature of experience and observation.

It is reminiscent of John Keel and the Mothman phenomenon. He almost alone amongst serious investigators took people at their word as to their observations and experiences, and made the excellent and rare point that there was in fact physical evidence where one would expect it to be given what was reported- it's just that none of the entities encountered told the truth and the physical evidence meant nothing, led nowhere, and substantiated no theory, other than his eventual theory, which was that there nonhuman intelligences, that they frequently seemed disoriented and/or deceptive, and that they could pretty much control encounters to the point that it was hard to trust reality at all. Leading to a growing sense of unease that could blossom into a fullblown psychotic break all too easily.

[Goat]

Spayne, do you view Christianity/God as a set of truth claims or simply a "personal path?"

If Christianity/God is simply a personal path, then it is subjective and no more true than atheism, Hinduism, Paganism or any other (non)belief system.

If Christianity/God is a set of truth claims, then it must be supported with evidence.

Remember, truth is objective, not subjective. If one wishes to declare God/Christianity true, he/she must put forward some supporting evidence.

Christianity is not only objective truth, it is the only purely objective truth, and is personified by the One who said "I am the truth." Truth is not a claim nor is it an idea. It is a person, and his name is Jesus Christ.

Or consider it this way: if there was a God who really did create the Universe, human beings, and all of life as we know it, then it would be the responsibility of that God to reveal himself to people. He would have to take great care in revealing his character, his purposes, and his expectations to mankind so that they could know him. The Bible reveals all of these things. It is the message of God to mankind, and it answers all five of the qualities you expressed in your debate question. But wait, it gets better! Instead of just telling people about his character, God eventually comes into the world and reveals himself directly to the world, through the person of Jesus Christ.

The Bible, in this regard, IS the empirical evidence for God.

So then you can explain to us which of the many versions of Christianity, using which of the many versions of the Bible, and which of the many interpretations of that Bible is the only objective truth based on empirical evidence. Just iron out a few of those pesky little details for us.

... or is this just an opinion?

Not an opinion. I'm just the messenger.
[/quote[

I have heard that line many times.. when someone is preaching and giving what their opinion of their version of Christianity is. What makes it not believable is that often, these people contradict each other.

However, merely claiming you are just the messenger does not show that 'The bible is the only objective truth'.. You are the one that made that claim here.. the bible did not make that claim here.. you did.

Can you support it with more that 'I said so'. and 'I am just the messenger'?

There is only one form of Christianity: the one that says Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And while there are certainly many different Bible translations to choose from, they are taken from only a small group of manuscripts, of which there is very little variation. The Dead Sea Scroll discoveries resolved all this apparent manuscript discrepancy that nonbelievers like to talk so much about. Don't believe the hype!

Gosh, I think you got Southern Baptists, some of which that claim the Roman Catholics aren't Christian, you got the Jehovah Witnesses, who deny the validity of the trinity (as well as the arians, and the oneness Pentecostals)..

And, no, the dead see scrolls did not resolve all the apparent manuscript discrepancy. Did you know that not one NT manuscript was found in the DDS, and many of the discrepency's are in the NT?

Forr the record, this is a debate topic about the empirical evidence for God. I am well within the scope of the debate topic to be referencing the Bible, and citing it as empirical evidence. As already stated, the Bible addresses perfectly the five different proofs for God that were introduced in the debate topic.

And, I am asking exactly HOW is the bible 'empirical evidence' for God. If it is empirical, you can SHOW me. All I see is unsupported claims in the bible.

[spayne]

And, I am asking exactly HOW is the bible 'empirical evidence' for God. If it is empirical, you can SHOW me. All I see is unsupported claims in the bible.

Of course all you see is unsupported claims. That was all I saw as well when I was an agnostic. Nothing I tell you here is going to convince you. You wouldn't even believe me a few months ago when I tried to use personal testimony (my own and others) as evidence for the power and truth of Jesus Christ. Remember that? You told me it was all a placebo effect. I have already been down this road with you before Goat. Doing this again, knowing exactly how you are going to respond, is just a waste of time. If you really want to know, read the bible and make sure and pray beforehand that God would reveal himself to you.

[Goat]

And, I am asking exactly HOW is the bible 'empirical evidence' for God. If it is empirical, you can SHOW me. All I see is unsupported claims in the bible.

Of course all you see is unsupported claims. That was all I saw as well when I was an agnostic. Nothing I tell you here is going to convince you. You wouldn't even believe me a few months ago when I tried to use personal testimony (my own and others) as evidence for the power and truth of Jesus Christ. Remember that? You told me it was all a placebo effect. I have already been down this road with you before Goat. Doing this again, knowing exactly how you are going to respond, is just a waste of time. If you really want to know, read the bible and make sure and pray beforehand that God would reveal himself to you.

Well, then maybe you don't understand what the word 'empirical' is. That is stuff you can SHOW ME is true. I don't see that. If you have your subjective evidence, that's fine for you. .However, this the debate section.. where you have to present evidence.


And, the claim I want you to provide evidence for is that claim that the 'bible is empirical evidence'. I am ask 'how is it?? " That question gets avoided.

And, by the way, I have read the bible. I see a lot of contradictions.. specifically in the New Testament.. and I see how the writers of the New Testament distorted the Jewish scripture by quote mining and misrepresenting it. I find that when someone does that, I can not find any of their claims credible.

[spayne]

Well, then maybe you don't understand what the word 'empirical' is. That is stuff you can SHOW ME is true. I don't see that. If you have your subjective evidence, that's fine for you. .However, this the debate section.. where you have to present evidence.

I get it. I just don't think anything is going to be sufficient for you. Actually, the words of Paul in Romans come to mind:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

And for the record, I already have presented evidence. Christians believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and that in it are a number of proofs that confirm this. I would cite some important ones as being the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the strong prophetic element of the Bible particulary with regard to Jesus Christ, the absolute continuity of theme throughout the book despite the fact that the book has so many authors and was written over a 2,000 year period, the moral order that it establishes, the description of sin as the destructive force of mankind, the emphasis on destroying evil, the revealed character of God as loving, righteous and holy, and outside of all this, the various archaeological discoveries that confirm the truth of various Bible stories, the survival of the Jewish people in the face of enormous persecution, and the creation of an international movement of Christians in which literall millions of people have come to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[TheJackelantern]

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?

Why not? We can play a game of checkers... Hey, if I can go outside and meet the Pantheist GOD and have fun enjoying their GOD, why can't I yours? .. Surely you claim he exists somewhere in the Pantheists GOD...Right? Is he the father that doesn't spend any quality time with his supposed children?... Well it's odd that our Grand Father (existence) spends more time with us..

See your problem is that you like to point to the Pantheist GOD and say "Hey that's evidence" when it's not evidence of your GOD.. So please do elaborate here... Do you have a family photo of you and your GOD? I have all sorts of photos with the Pantheists GOD. Look, here is just a small fraction of him:



He's omnipresent.. look here:

[McCulloch]

I get it. I just don't think anything is going to be sufficient for you. Actually, the words of Paul in Romans come to mind:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

For the record, I disagree with Paul on this point. Please demonstrate to us how it is that Paul's assertion here is valid. How do the eternal power of God and which aspects of God's divine nature are clearly seen and understood from the creation? Please be very specific, I am sometimes rather thick when it comes to spiritual matters.

And for the record, I already have presented evidence. Christians believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and that in it are a number of proofs that confirm this.

And, for the record, your evidence has been shown to be lacking.

I would cite some important ones as being the life and ministry of Jesus Christ,

The New Testament is true because of the alleged life and ministry of the central character? This is a kind of circular reasoning.

the strong prophetic element of the Bible particulary with regard to Jesus Christ,

The prophetic element regarding Jesus is not convincing to anyone but the already convinced or those who are not particularly skeptical. The promoters of a new religion, writing in the second half of the first century, want to convince their readers that their messiah from the first half of the century was the fulfillment of ancient Jewish messianic prophesy. Bit of a no brainer that. As they compose their Gospels, they scan the scriptures for anything that looks like a messianic prophesy and include or invent some detail in Jesus' life to fulfill it. They would have written that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, even if he was actually born in Allentown!

the absolute continuity of theme throughout the book despite the fact that the book has so many authors and was written over a 2,000 year period,

This is an oft repeated claim that is to my mind both wrong and subjective. What the Christians call the Old Testament speaks only of Jesus anachronistically. The Jews of the early Christian centuries up until today see through that deception. That is part of the reason for the strong antisemitism in the history of the Christian Church.

the moral order that it establishes,

Any moral order in the Bible that is worth having, can be arrived at independently of it. You and I really don't need the Bible to tell us that murder is wrong (which it does) or that slavery is wrong (which it does not).

the description of sin as the destructive force of mankind, the emphasis on destroying evil,

That is somewhat tautological. Doing bad stuff is not good in the long run. D'oh!

the revealed character of God as loving, righteous and holy,

Actually the character of God as revealed in the Christian scriptures is only selectively loving and certainly not righteous.

and outside of all this, the various archaeological discoveries that confirm the truth of various Bible stories,

Archaeology only confirms that the writers of the tales were familiar with their own surroundings. It does not confirm the truth of the myths presented.

the survival of the Jewish people in the face of enormous persecution,

A double edged sword. The continued survival of the Jewish religion in the face of its apparent successor is a thorn in the side of the Christian message. Why is it that more Jews do not convert?

and the creation of an international movement of Christians in which literall millions of people have come to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Lots of people can be wrong.

[Goat]

Well, then maybe you don't understand what the word 'empirical' is. That is stuff you can SHOW ME is true. I don't see that. If you have your subjective evidence, that's fine for you. .However, this the debate section.. where you have to present evidence.

I get it. I just don't think anything is going to be sufficient for you. Actually, the words of Paul in Romans come to mind:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

And for the record, I already have presented evidence. Christians believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and that in it are a number of proofs that confirm this. I would cite some important ones as being the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the strong prophetic element of the Bible particulary with regard to Jesus Christ, the absolute continuity of theme throughout the book despite the fact that the book has so many authors and was written over a 2,000 year period, the moral order that it establishes, the description of sin as the destructive force of mankind, the emphasis on destroying evil, the revealed character of God as loving, righteous and holy, and outside of all this, the various archaeological discoveries that confirm the truth of various Bible stories, the survival of the Jewish people in the face of enormous persecution, and the creation of an international movement of Christians in which literall millions of people have come to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I don't care about what you believe. I care about 'Can you show your claims are true'. Those are two different items.

You believe 'the bible is empirical evidence'. Can you SHOW the bible is empirical evidence. If you can't, then the claim 'The bible is empirical evidence' is an unsupported claim. The claims 'so many authors and ' then a bunch of unsupported religious claims' don't matter to me.

And, I challenge you to show the archeological evidence that the supernatural claims of the bible are true. I also know that many of those so called 'archeological evidence' is exaggerated, or biased. Yes, much is true, .. but that does not mean the supernatural claims are true.

For example. let's see the archeological evidence of.. oh.. lets say the exodus.. and the resurrection.

Or.. how about Sodom and Gomorrah.. that is an often claimed one.

Unsupported claims do not support unsupported claims.