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 190 by Rufus21]

Are you claiming that as an atheist that you do not have bias relating to how science (specifically biological evolution) is interpreted by atheists?

Perhaps that is the question which needs answering before I can question you more on that to even begin to understand why you believe that this is so.

This is because you are giving the impression that no bias is involved in your interpretation but haven't really shared why you believe this to be the case.

I at least have shared why I think it is the case, and do not wish to repeat myself too much. If the point isn't getting through, all we are left with is a circular argument - going no where and best left aside for the time being.

[Bust Nak]

At this point I have nothing I want to say in reply to your post as it seems too disconnected and unaligned with what I was arguing.

The reader can decide for themselves.

That's up to you, but just don't let me catch you saying that atheists can't articulate what constitute evidence that gods exist.

[Rufus21]

Are you claiming that as an atheist that you do not have bias relating to how science (specifically biological evolution) is interpreted by atheists?

I don't understand what you mean by "interpreted". I believe in biological evolution because it has been proven. End of story. There's no need to interpret anything. I believed in evolution when I was a Christian and I still believe it as an atheist. If anything, becoming an atheist has ended my need to interpret facts in order to support my beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to post 193 by Rufus21]

If anything, becoming an atheist has ended my need to interpret facts in order to support my beliefs.

Q: What type of atheist are you? To which subset do you most identify with and support?

One fact is that;

A scientific process can determine that consciousness can be seen to be interacting with the brain.

Q: As an 'atheist' and depending on what type of atheist you are - what can you derive from the fact of that (italicized) data?

[Rufus21]

Q: What type of atheist are you? To which subset do you most identify with and support?

It depends on the god. Obviously we all know that Zeus doesn't exist. I haven't studied Buddhism so I have no opinion on Buddha. I primarily grew up studying the Christian bible and learned that it is false. So I guess I fit into a lot of different categories for different religions. I keep an open mind and accept whatever truth I can find.

consciousness can be seen to be interacting with the brain.

I don't understand exactly what that means. Obviously the different parts of our brain interact. How is this any different?

[William]

[Replying to post 195 by Rufus21]

Well okay - thanks for that Rufus21.
I have nothing else I wish to add at this time.

[dio9]

The evidence is if you are ware of it or not. God is not objectified in your mind , God is the subject. it is You who exist as the object in God's mind.

[Wootah]

The evidence is if you are ware of it or not. God is not objectified in your mind , God is the subject. it is You who exist as the object in God's mind.

Moderator Comment

Please use evidence and not make assertions.

This post would be considered to not comply with the guidelines on preaching. Please read through the guidelines and abide by them.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Rufus21]

Well okay - thanks for that Rufus21.
I have nothing else I wish to add at this time.

So are we just done then?

So many threads on this website seem to end abruptly without closure. Will I never get my answers?

[KenRU]

[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.

Expectation is one thing, willing to believe it if it is presented is another. Please don’t question my motives, since you clearly do not know me. Just because I don’t expect or believe it can be answered, does not mean I would discount one if it were presented.

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.

The problem with this logic is that I am not the one with the pretext – the assertion. You have cause and effect backwards. This is akin to me telling you that I can prove unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. You wouldn’t believe such an assertion but you would be completely justified in asking for said proof. And you would, imo, have no fault in doing so.

In that, it is clearly a dishonest demand.

No, it is not. It would only be dishonest if I were knowingly asking for proof I would not believe. That is different than not expecting that proof exists.

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.

Your surety (or mine for that matter) that these institutions are wrong and have no proof to back up their claims are not in question and are not the issue.

The issue is what would constitute evidence for me. And given the context that a vast majority of god concepts come from the holy books of the world’s most popular religions, I am completely within the bounds of justified reason to expect those religions to back up their claims.

No dishonesty required on my part.

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.

By that logic, one can never honestly learn anything when they are wrong.

Nice try. That logic fails. Everyone is wrong about something in their life. The only way to learn is to be open to hearing contrary points of views.

That is not being dishonest.

But you don't do you?

No, I do not. But I don’t have to. And that does not make it a dishonest question.

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.

Which is not what is being claimed by the theist. If that were the case from the outset, you might be right, and I probably would agree with you.

Just a casual surfing of this site would show you that many theists here claim that what you say is simply not true.

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.

You’re right, stories would not convince me, but that is not the claim the theist is making.

I say that GOD exists, but my position is Panenthistic - and in that there is no holy book with questionable stories in them.

What evidence convinced you of this?

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?

Which is irrelevant to whether or not the car exists. I may not want the car, but if it strikes my fancy, I may want to buy it.

If so, why?

For what it is worth, I was a practicing Catholic for 20+ years. So, I did own the car for a while.

[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.]

Once again, your logic fails. Many people change their minds and buy things. No dishonesty required.

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'?

Sure. If I am convinced, I am convinced. Science, evidence, proofs, etc do carry a lot of weight to me, but I’m sure the god portrayed in the holy books is capable of proving his existence to me.

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.

Depends on the subjective evidence, wouldn’t it? Everyone is guilty of this.

I don’t believe other ppl’s ghost stories. But if I experienced one, I would believe but I would not expect others to believe me.

Nothing remarkable about this.

You will still have the problem of convincing others the same thing because they want objective evidence.

No, I would not. Why would I have to convince anyone of my personal experience? I have no expectation that they should believe me.

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.

They sure could.

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.

Objective evidence would convince more ppl than subjective, sure. Not seeing this as any kind of great revelation though.

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?

Because no other information is available. How is making something up 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.

Which sounds to me like a whole bunch of that subjective evidence you were discounting earlier

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.

I am stuck in the parameters of the OP.

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'.

Yes, most religions do not advance much of anything. We agree.

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'.

First off, the main religions that predominate society today shape our society in untold numerous ways. To deny this, or to not take part in that conversation if self-destructively foolish, imo. Secondly, one can only institute change by engaging in the conversation, not by abstaining.

Only these assertions are not'current' at all.

They are currently being advanced and instituted today by religious institutions and ppl. Your point is rendered meaningless buy this fact.

They derive from ancient sources.

Agreed, but they are still very much current – in the fact that they are still discussed, made into law, and practiced.

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.

It is obvious to me now, but I do think that stance is foolish.

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.

Should I assume from this line that you have some scientific evidence that god exists?

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.)

Agreed.

But if the inclusion of subjective evidence is acceptable as well, then no.

I’ll give you an example, as generalizing is not helpful here. If I had a subjective experience, say, seeing the ghost of a dead relative telling me to go back to church, that might do it. There is no way to prove to others that it happened, and I would expect no one to believe me, but, nonetheless, I may very well be in church next Sunday.

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.

I don’t expect the believers to do miracles. I expect the god they purport to exist to perform miracles, as he has done numerous times in the holy book they use as evidence and proof.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion.

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.

Many fictitious books contain pearls of wisdom, as well as acts of bigotry and barbarisms

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"?

That would vary depending upon which god we are talking about. The one purported to exist by the vast majority of ppl on earth? Asked an answered.

One not yet proposed to me? I don’t know. What characteristics does he have?

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.

It might be, or it may not be. It would depend on how the god showed himself to me.

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.

It would depend. If I encountered a torrent of subjective evidence, sure. But surely you agree that the god of the bible could (if he existed) come down from heaven and provide a heaping dose of “objective� evidence to you, if he so choose to do so, correct?

You good with that?

If it was subjective to me, yes. If it was objective proof? No, then one would be acting irrationally to deny it.

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.

Other than the fact that you can imagine this scenario, you have no reason to believe it is true, so, imo, it should be given as little weight as possible.

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

You imaginative opinion is noted.

Just because a scenario can be imagined, does not mean it should be given credence.

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.

Once again, just because you imagine a possibility, doesn’t mean it is a possibility. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proofs or evidence, imo.

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.

Simply, no. The miracles purported in such holy books are caused by a god. Scientists are not gods, though some may think themselves such, lol.

The effects or consequences of such miracles might be able to be measured, but the acts are performed by a god. Not people.

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.

Imagination is/can be boundless. It does not follow that everything is possible.

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

We disagree. Your analogy fails. Magicians are ppl, and what they do can be studied. The miracles in holy books are performed by gods, and are not bound by earthly laws. If I am to believe such a claim (that they exist) it is reasonable of me to expect them to behave as they are reported to do so – subverting the laws of nature.

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?

Irrelevant to whether the car exists or not. I may or may not want to buy it. The point of a salesman is to sell – even to those who may not want to buy it.

That is the real question.

No, it is not. Sorry, I disagree.

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?

Exactly. What you said is my point – I got to examine the evidence/offer.

No such credible evidence/offer exists in religion, imo, to believe any god exists.

all the best
(sorry for the long delayed response)