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."
(

[Artie]

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".

We have no way of knowing how Spirit may function. We know nothing about Spirit because we have no evidence that Spirit in any way influences the physical universe. It might as well be non-existent and is therefore irrelevant to science.

I understand you are saying that effects of Spirit upon the universe should be scientifically measurable if existant when/if Spirit influences the universe.

Yes.

Is there any science or scientific law that states that Spirit must give off a signature or effect when influencing the physical universe?

No. Cause and effect. No cause, no effect. That which influences causes some effect.

How do you know that an "effect"from Spirit influence should manifest it's presence?

Because if it didn't manifest its presence it wouldn't be an effect.

How do you know that Spirit can't affect the physical universeunless science can discover Spirit?

We don't know if Spirit can affect the physical universe. Science can't discover Spirit directly, only its effect on the physical universe. No effect caused by Spirit has ever been observed in the physical universe.

[Haven]

I lack belief in spirit(s) in the same way that I lack belief in god(s). Unless and until someone can put forth a coherent definition of "spirit(s)" and produce evidence for its/their existence, I see no reason to seriously consider such a concept.

[earl]

Artie,
Long ago in an age when science did not exist a person was quoted who said something about a sign seeking generation.He said ,"a sign will not be given'.
Got to give this guy some credit considering the age in which he made the statement, for science today and all it has developed into has yet to discover a sign pointing towards a cause or God.
Don't you think he obviously knew what would never be discovered by sign seekers?

Since scientist "have no way of knowing"it seems people have discovered God ,the cause of all things without the involvement of science.
Can science claim people are not God conscious by saying Spirit does not exist?
It would seem people somehow carries the evidence of God within their mind.This evidence,God consciousness seems to be nontransferable to another for scientific examination.I have not observed another transfer God consciousness to another,have you?
I would think this is a person's way of "knowing".
Criticism of this personal non scientific evidence within the self continues even today sometimes called "knowing" in contrast to some not knowing.

[Flail]

earl wrote:

Can science claim people are not God conscious by saying Spirit does not exist?

Can religious people claim with verification that Spirits and Gods do exist? Doesn't the fact that Gods and spirits are unverifiable lend credence to the claim that ideas about such entities are concocted?

[Artie]

Artie,
Long ago in an age when science did not exist a person was quoted who said something about a sign seeking generation.He said ,"a sign will not be given'.
Got to give this guy some credit considering the age in which he made the statement, for science today and all it has developed into has yet to discover a sign pointing towards a cause or God. Don't you think he obviously knew what would never be discovered by sign seekers?

Scientists are not sign seekers or trying to "prove" or "disprove" deities. They are simply trying to understand reality. Deities are irrelevant to science because there's no evidence they exist. Of course he said "a sign will not be given". If God doesn't exist there's nothing to give a sign. If He exists and gives a sign He gives Himself up, faith and belief is no longer required, and science will simply try to figure out what or who He is.

Since scientist "have no way of knowing"it seems people have discovered God ,the cause of all things without the involvement of science.

How can someone discover something without evidence? Then it would be equally valid to say that people have discovered Allah, Brahman or Santa Claus and that because there's no evidence for them they must all exist.

Can science claim people are not God conscious by saying Spirit does not exist?

People are also Allah conscious or Brahman conscious. Is that evidence for the existence of Allah or Brahman?

It would seem people somehow carries the evidence of God within their mind.This evidence,God consciousness seems to be nontransferable to another for scientific examination.I have not observed another transfer God consciousness to another,have you?

That would depend on how you define God consciousness. People who believe in deities transfer this belief to their offspring all the time. Which deity consciousness people have depends on where they happened to be born and just depends on the society they live in.

I would think this is a person's way of "knowing".
Criticism of this personal non scientific evidence within the self continues even today sometimes called "knowing" in contrast to some not knowing.

A person in the western world "knows" God exists. A person in Iraq "knows" Allah exists. A person in India "knows" Brahman exists. As there is no evidence for any of those deities we might as well assume that this "knowing" has no basis in reality.

[Flail]

Artie wrote:

How can someone discover something without evidence? Then it would be equally valid to say that people have discovered Allah, Brahman or Santa Claus and that because there's no evidence for them they must all exist.

But as to Santa Claus, we do have 'present evidence'...evidence that proves Santa is myth (half eaten cookies, a shop at the north pole, weather channel sightings, Santa at the Department Store, presents under the tree etc) and when we examine this evidence it proves to be manufactured and false; whereas with God there is no present evidence at all, nothing to examine, so either God does not exist or God exists but has chosen to remain undetectable, apart from our reality and has left us 'on our own'. In the interim, without evidence, a coherent definition of what God would be is impossible and debate over God's existence or non-existence is meaningless.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 63:

...
Don't you think he obviously knew what would never be discovered by sign seekers?

A "not offerer of signs" and "ain't one there to be givin' 'em" look alot alike.

Since scientist "have no way of knowing"it seems people have discovered God ,the cause of all things without the involvement of science.

Or they're using the god concept to fill gaps in their knowledge, and then claiming to possess a knowledge they do not.

Can science claim people are not God conscious by saying Spirit does not exist?

Prob'ly not. But science can say "danged if any of these folks can show their spirit claims are true".

It would seem people somehow carries the evidence of God within their mind.This evidence,God consciousness seems to be nontransferable to another for scientific examination.I have not observed another transfer God consciousness to another,have you?

Seem. In the absence of any confirmable knowledge, the god concept sprouts wings.

I would think this is a person's way of "knowing".

"Would think" and can show are two different things.

Criticism of this personal non scientific evidence within the self continues even today sometimes called "knowing" in contrast to some not knowing.

Due to the nature of the god concept, confirmable, testable claims to know the properties thereof will forever be absent. The god concept is ether.

[earl]

Artie,
If one says God does not exist then one must also say the universe is an automation,spontaneous and above all mechanistic.
If the universe is then mechanistic then a machine is what man really is.
And since man would then be a machine ,man the machine is void of the ability to "know".A machine cannot "know".Do you know of a machine that is capable of being something other than a machine?
If men were only machines then men will act as such.Machines cannot think for themselves ,muchless know truth or love.What about a machine possessing self consciousness?
Who then would agree to the belief that they are a machine ?

[Goat]

Artie,
If one says God does not exist then one must also say the universe is an automation,spontaneous and above all mechanistic.
If the universe is then mechanistic then a machine is what man really is.
And since man would then be a machine ,man the machine is void of the ability to "know".A machine cannot "know".Do you know of a machine that is capable of being something other than a machine?
If men were only machines then men will act as such.Machines cannot think for themselves ,muchless know truth or love.What about a machine possessing self consciousness?
Who then would agree to the belief that they are a machine ?

Define 'machine'. Please provide evidence that 'A machine can not know'. This sounds like word games, the logical fallacy of equivocation, and making a whole bunch of unsupported claims

[Artie]

Artie, If one says God does not exist then one must also say the universe is an automation,spontaneous and above all mechanistic.

We have no evidence that the universe is anything but mechanistic. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun because it has made up its mind to do so or because it enjoys it. It does it because of gravity.

If the universe is then mechanistic then a machine is what man really is.

A biological self-aware machine where surgeons like mechanics can fix or even replace biological parts with mechanical ones.

And since man would then be a machine ,man the machine is void of the ability to "know".A machine cannot "know". See the link below on how we "know". Do you know of a machine that is capable of being something other than a machine? If men were only machines then men will act as such.Machines cannot think for themselves ,muchless know truth or love.What about a machine possessing self consciousness?
Who then would agree to the belief that they are a machine ?

This is a very interesting and complicated question that can't be answered in a few sentences. As a start I have found an interesting article at http://edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandra ... index.html. There is a simple test to determine whether a man's self-awareness and consciousness is located in the wonderful biological computer we call the brain. Give him a knock over the head and watch his self-awareness and consciousness disappear! On second thought, don't take that literally...