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?

[Bust Nak]

This is a new question.

Q: What would describe evidence that God does exist?

The old question was:

Q: What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

One word is changed, sure, but what is the difference in meaning? You are asking me to literally describe evidence that God does exist?

If so then "severely lacking" would describe it. I am pretty sure that wasn't what you meant by describe.

It appears clear enough that the OP question was asking for examples as to what would constitute evidence [Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment] for the existence of GOD.

No, the OP questions was asking for what would constitute evidence for the existence of GOD.

If that is NOT the case, one would think that Member McCulloch would have already posted to say so.

If he meant examples, he would have said so in the OP.

[William]

[Replying to post 171 by Bust Nak]

One word is changed, sure, but what is the difference in meaning?

Yes.

You are asking me to literally describe evidence that God does exist?

No.

Member McCulloch is the one who started the thread. The OP appears to be asking for anything which would literally constitute evidence that God does exist.

If so then "severely lacking" would describe it.

Severely lacking 'what'? Signs of creativity perhaps? Signs of intelligence and design in the life forms on the planet? Signs of encoding within the process?

I am pretty sure that wasn't what you meant by describe.

I didn't start the thread or ask the question.

My answer was this:

Good question.

Specify what is meant by 'GOD' and then ask the question.

The answers will be focused upon the particular ideas of what GOD is and so will vary.

Also specify what type of evidence one is asking for. Empirical [Objectively able to be seen as factual, actual, real, verifiable, first-hand;] or other [subjectively experienced, seen in the nature of creation...]?

My understanding of 'what GOD is' is that IT is a conscious self aware intelligent creative entity which (in relation to our reality) permeates the whole universe and divests aspects of its conscious self into forms within the universe and uses those forms to creator other forms in which to divest more aspects of its consciousness into.

Essentially that makes all of us humans aspects of GOD consciousness.

So with the above definition, ask your question;

Q: "What would constitute evidence that the above idea of what GOD is, does exist?"

I was clear from the start (that was on page 1 post 9) and haven't changed my position.

It appears clear enough that the OP question was asking for examples as to what would constitute evidence [Empirical evidence, testable in a lab environment] for the existence of GOD.

No, the OP questions was asking for what would constitute evidence for the existence of GOD.

So you are suggesting that the question was rhetorical?

I think if someone asks such a question they are requiring examples which could - perhaps - answer the question. I also think you are playing the semantics game.

If he meant examples, he would have said so in the OP.

Are you a spokesperson for Member McCulloch? Let the member explain what he meant.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 172 by William]

Will you address post 164 when you find a moment? Tell me what I'm missing.

[Bust Nak]

Yes.

I asked you what is the difference in meaning. "Yes" doesn't tell me anything.

Member McCulloch is the one who started the thread. The OP appears to be asking for anything which would literally constitute evidence that God does exist.

Right, empirical evidence would literally constitute evidence that God does exist.

Severely lacking 'what'? Signs of creativity perhaps? Signs of intelligence and design in the life forms on the planet? Signs of encoding within the process?

Yes, all of the above, but that list is far from complete.

I didn't start the thread or ask the question.

You didn't start the thread, but you were the one who asked me "what would describe evidence that God does exist?" What did you mean by describe, if you weren't asking me to give a description of the evidence.

...So with the above definition, ask your question;

Q: "What would constitute evidence that the above idea of what GOD is, does exist?"

I was clear from the start (that was on page 1 post 9) and haven't changed my position.

I am not all that interested in your position, I am interested in your challenge to/comment on mine.

So you are suggesting that the question was rhetorical?

No, I was suggesting a) the question was very clear, and b) you misinterpreted it as asking for examples.

I think if someone asks such a question they are requiring examples which could - perhaps - answer the question. I also think you are playing the semantics game.

If someone wants examples, they would ask for them. Again, I point you to my earlier example. If someone asks "what would constitute prime numbers?" Which is the better answer? a) "numbers that are divisible only by itself and 1" or b) "5, 7 and 13 too."

Are you a spokesperson for Member McCulloch? Let the member explain what he meant.

Sure, in the meantime, why not go with what he actually said?

[William]

[Replying to post 174 by Bust Nak]

Let the member explain what he meant.

Sure, in the meantime, why not go with what he actually said?

I did. (that was on page 1 post 9) There has been no dispute from the member that I misunderstood what he meant, in what he said.

Right, empirical evidence would literally constitute evidence that God does exist.

Some interpret the evidence in that way and others interpret it another way. Same evidence - different interpretation. (see here)

I am not all that interested in your position

Your choice entirely.

I am interested in your challenge to/comment on mine.

It appears that the main issue therein is your interpretation of what the OP was asking is different from mine. The member himself remains silent, so until he chooses to clarify what he meant, I see no reason to continue this line of argument.

No, I was suggesting a) the question was very clear, and b) you misinterpreted it as asking for examples.

As I have explained in other posts...the member quoted me from another argument we were having which was related to my claiming that no scientific evidence that I knew of could show that GOD exists, and that I didn't think any such evidence existed.. Thus, it was safe for me to assume the member was putting the question out there by starting this thread, to see if this was the case. So far no one has given any example of what might constitute evidence that GOD exists, just as I said was the case.

So rather than continue going around in circles with you, let the member step forward to clarify, or let the member remain silent. If the member remains silent I see no point in continuing the discussion and am satisfied that I am correct in my assessment that there is no evidence which can be provided through science which can show that GOD exists, or for that matter, can show that GOD does not exist. Science presently cannot be used for such a purpose.

[William]

[Replying to post 173 by Inigo Montoya]

Will you address post 164 when you find a moment? Tell me what I'm missing.

Sure.

Here 'tis.

♦ My answer to your questions

[Bust Nak]

Some interpret the evidence in that way and others interpret it another way. Same evidence - different interpretation. (see here)

That's why it is so important to insist on empirical evidence, to take personal bias out of the interpretation.

As I have explained in other posts...the member quoted me from another argument we were having which was related to my claiming that no scientific evidence that I knew of could show that GOD exists, and that I didn't think any such evidence existed...

Of course not.

Thus, it was safe for me to assume the member was putting the question out there by starting this thread, to see if this was the case. So far no one has given any example of what might constitute evidence that GOD exists, just as I said was the case.

I did. Remember the experiment I suggested?

...there is no evidence which can be provided through science which can show that GOD exists, or for that matter, can show that GOD does not exist. Science presently cannot be used for such a purpose.

Again, see the experiment I suggested.

[paarsurrey1]

Bust Nak wrote:
Again, see the experiment I suggested.

Kindly mention the post in which one has mentioned the experiment. Sorry, I could not locate it, please.
Regards

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 178 by paarsurrey1]

Sure, post#146, repeated here for your convenience:

Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group in guessing the written content of an envelope, in a lab environment.

[William]

[Replying to post 177 by Bust Nak]

That's why it is so important to insist on empirical evidence, to take personal bias out of the interpretation.

If personal interpretation never entered into it, theists and atheists would not mention how they interpret the evidence and we could all just accept the evidence without interpreting what the evidence was showing in relation to personal bias.

But this is the real world, and as such we have debates over how such things are interpreted.

Science doesn't interpret itself. It is simply a process (although not ordinarily a simple process.)

Christians doing statically significantly better than the control group in guessing the written content of an envelope, in a lab environment.

In what way would this constitute evidence that GOD exists? I don't see it myself, but short of actually setting such an experiment up and seeing what results can be forthcoming - if the results determined that Christians fared no better or worse than any other group, that in itself would not constitute evidence that GOD does NOT exist.

I find the evidence of life forms on the planet enough therein to constitute that GOD exists.