What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Freodin]

Here lies the problem of unbelief. I don't understand how it can be suggested that to seek for something it requires you to not believe it exists. For instance a scientist forms a premise on what he expects to find, not what he doesn't.

When we consider searching for the One True God this doesn't imply finding Yahweh. For instance many people believe God exists, and many even identify Him as Yahweh, but they still haven't found Him. Finding Him imlies knowing Him, not simply acknolwedging He exists. The fisrt step, and requirement, is acknowledgment which must be followed by truly seeking.

And herein lies the problem of belief. You assume that the first step is "acknowledgement"... that is, starting from the premise that you already have your answer, and are just looking for confirmation. And only that which yields you this confirmation is considered "truly seeking".

But your premise is incorrect. You need to start from a position of ambiguity. Acknowledgement is what you are looking for, not what you start with.

Yahweh promise if you follow this method you will find Him ie. You will come to know Him, as Yahweh, the One True God.

The next problem: the only description of this "method" is "if you succeed, you know that you have the right method". Again, you are starting from the end.

The evidence that you have a car may be that it's parked in your garage ( hopefully Davian's dragon isn't guarding it ) . From there you would be confident you have keys to this car, and search for them.

So how do I find out if there is a car parked in my garage?

Let's track back to the "One True God" part of this analogy. Shouldn't I have to start with the acknowledgement that there is a car parked in my garage, and then start looking for the keys?

Or should I look in my garage for a car first before I start looking for the "One True Key"?

 

[Colter]

You've formed the wrong conclusion. To truly seek something you must believe it exists. There's no point in seaching for your car keys, if you don't own a car.

Seeking Yahweh is the search for the One True God; and to conduct this search you must accept/believe He exists, as you hinted. ie knowing God exists, isn't finding Him.

True! And when one sincerely starts out to find God, this faith gift is the evidence that they have already found him. But God never invades the sincere desires of the human will.

 

[Inkfingers]

The best evidence for the existence of God is the existence of an orderly universe understandable through reason.

Existence means structure.
Structure means order.
Order means cause and effect.
Cause and effect means events are a flow of information.
Events being a flow of information means there is an intelligence behind events.
The Chinese called that intelligence Tao.
The Greeks called it Logos.
Regardless of what you call it, the evidence for it being there is overwhelming. You can debate which religion best understands it, but to doubt its existence is to live in a bubble.

 

[agua]

No, it hasn't left any physical evidence of its presence, but it's there. If you seek him with your heart, you will find him.

I've been addressing the model sincerely. If you'd prefer to mess around maybe we can do this too.

Heretic! Blasphemer!

Of course it has left tons of physical evidence! The scar on your belly! The oily smear in the corner. The heap of excrement lying on the sidewalk. And many many other things.

All this is touchable, verifiable evidence of the invisible dragon! How can you deny it?

Which piece of evidence are you presenting; if you'd like me to draw a serious conclusion? Else we can mess around for fun, if you prefer.

Such individuals do not exist, because failing to find him means you didn't "truly" search... and so on.

That is the problem with untestable answers: they are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

The premise is falsifiable. I have truly sought Yahweh, and found Him as have many others. Have you truly sought Yahweh ?

You say that Yahweh promises that. I'm not convinced that you speak for Yahweh or any other deity.

You have the freedom to not believe what Yahweh has said, of course.

If I say yes, you will simply conclude that I have been insincere in my search because I haven't come to the same theological commitments as you.

I'm asking a sincere question, and so far it seems you wish to play games. Yahweh keeps His promises; you should take Him at His word you won't be disappointed.

Why can't I? Why can't I claim that if you are honest in your search you will inevitably come to understand that the FSM is real? It's you who claims that Yahweh exists and makes these promises. So why can't other religious believers claim that about their gods? There's nothing special about your particular claim. It can be made by anyone for any deity, or even no deity at all.

My claim is that Yahweh promises He will reveal Himself to anyone who truly seeks Him. Are you claiming the FSM or any other god has made this same promise ? If so can you present the nevidence of this claim ?

Alas, I am mistaken. All of creation testifies to the dragon in my garage. The fool sayeth in his heart that there is no dragon.

Again messing around. I've become accustomed to you not continuing in sensible conversation. But we can mess around if you prefer. I get bored with it eventually though, as you know.

 

[Freodin]

Which piece of evidence are you presenting; if you'd like me to draw a serious conclusion? Else we can mess around for fun, if you prefer.

Well, that is the topic of this thread, isn't it? You might call it "messing around for fun"... we call it "holding up a mirror to your claims".

The premise is falsifiable. I have truly sought Yahweh, and found Him as have many others.

This is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. You claim to have "found Yahweh". What does that mean? How would we verify or falsify that claim?

For example, you have elsewhere on this forum made claims that contradict claims that other people who claim to "have found him" make.

How do we find out who of you is right and who is wrong. This is what falsifiable and verifiable means: Finding out.

I can look in my garage if there is a car or not. Where should I look to see if you have found Yahweh or not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've been addressing the model sincerely. If you'd prefer to mess around maybe we can do this too.

Are you admitting to messing around with your previous comments then? Have you been addressing it sincerely? Surely, if you had been addressing it sincerely you would see that there is a dragon, no?

You have the freedom to not believe what Yahweh has said, of course.

I don't believe Yahweh has said anything of the sort. Why should I?

I'm asking a sincere question, and so far it seems you wish to play games. Yahweh keeps His promises; you should take Him at His word you won't be disappointed.

You're asking a sincere question but you won't accept any answer as sincere unless it's the answer you want.

My claim is that Yahweh promises He will reveal Himself to anyone who truly seeks Him. Are you claiming the FSM or any other god has made this same promise ? If so can you present the nevidence of this claim ?

Why should I have to? You apparently feel no need to present evidence for yours, so why should I present any for my own?

Again messing around. I've become accustomed to you not continuing in sensible conversation. But we can mess around if you prefer. I get bored with it eventually though, as you know.

I'm messing around because, in my view, you are being unreasonable. My messing around might construed as a sort of reductio ad absurdum of your position.

 

[Freodin]

The best evidence for the existence of God is the existence of an orderly universe understandable through reason.

Existence means structure.
Structure means order.
Order means cause and effect.
Cause and effect means events are a flow of information.
Events being a flow of information means there is an intelligence behind events.
The Chinese called that intelligence Tao.
The Greeks called it Logos.
Regardless of what you call it, the evidence for it being there is overwhelming. You can debate which religion best understands it, but to doubt its existence is to live in a bubble.

I disagree with your conclusion.

Yes, existence means structure, order. But then your logical chain fails.
Order is not a result of "cause and effect"... and all the other "causes" you then start to chain up.
Quite the contrary, "cause and effect" is a subset of "order".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The best evidence for the existence of God is the existence of an orderly universe understandable through reason.

Existence means structure.
Structure means order.
Order means cause and effect.
Cause and effect means events are a flow of information.
Events being a flow of information means there is an intelligence behind events.
The Chinese called that intelligence Tao.
The Greeks called it Logos.

Your conclusion does not seem to follow; it's a non sequitur. How does one go from the intelligibility of the natural world to Goddidit?

Regardless of what you call it, the evidence for it being there is overwhelming. You can debate which religion best understands it, but to doubt its existence is to live in a bubble.

Granting your argument in its entirety would leave us with deism at best.

 

[Inkfingers]

Lol, you lot would deny a rock falling on your heads.

The evidence is there; if you deny it, so be it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lol, you lot would deny a rock falling on your heads.

The evidence is there; if you deny it, so be it.

If the evidence is there then feel free to show us. Let's consider it.

 

[Freodin]

Lol, you lot would deny a rock falling on your heads.

The evidence is there; if you deny it, so be it.

Existence means matter. Matter means gravity. Gravity means acceleration of matter towards a center of mass.
See, there is a rock falling on your head. Do you feel it? Or do you deny it?

 

[Inkfingers]

If the evidence is there then feel free to show us. Let's consider it.

I have.

You denied it.

I have no interest in playing your word games when you clearly have no intention of actually looking at what is before your own eyes. Thankyou for the offer though.

 

[Freodin]

I have.

You denied it.

I have no interest in playing your word games when you clearly have no intention of actually looking at what is before your own eyes. Thankyou for the offer though.

I presented you with an objection to your "evidence". Why do you deny that it is there?

 

[agua]

Well, that is the topic of this thread, isn't it? You might call it "messing around for fun"... we call it "holding up a mirror to your claims".

I was addressing Mr Sagan's model of " The Dragon in my garage" as presented by Davian. If you wish to join in this discussion by assuming the position of the believer I'm happy to proceed, it's quite an interesting dilemma.

Freodin,I'll get back to the rest of your post/s tomorrow arvo net is poor here in Coffs.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have.

You denied it.

No, you presented an argument in which the conclusion did not follow from the premises. I even asked you to clarify the point, to make the connection more explicit.

I have no interest in playing your word games when you clearly have no intention of actually looking at what is before your own eyes. Thankyou for the offer though.

What word games? All I asked was for you to show us the evidence you claim to possess.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The best evidence for the existence of God is the existence of an orderly universe understandable through reason.

That is no argument at all. There is no reason to think that a universe could be disorderly, or that any possible universe would be incomprehensible through reason. Without good reasons to think that, the claim has no weight.

Existence means structure.
Structure means order.
Order means cause and effect.
Cause and effect means events are a flow of information.
Events being a flow of information means there is an intelligence behind events.

These statements don't follow each other well logically. I agree that there is a realm of existence that has a structure in which cause and effect take place. However, cause and effect do not imply a flow of information. Certainly, a rational mind may use cause and effect to convey information to another rational mind, but information is not something intrinsic to cause and effect. IOWs, just because there is cause and effect, that doesn't mean that there is communication between two rational minds taking place.

You cannot conclude that just because there is cause and effect that there must be an intelligence behind events. That just doesn't follow at all.

Lol, you lot would deny a rock falling on your heads.

You know very well that we would accept that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

You're misunderstanding the claim. Yahweh promises that anyone who truly searches for Him will find Him, not me.

Unless you can get it to post in this thread, all we have is your claims on the matter.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you show me how the claim that Yahweh promised that anyone who truly seeks Him will find Him, is wrong ?

Sure - all of the people who truly seeked and never found a god and all of the people who truly seeked and left Christianity after finding there was nothing really there.

I'll go with real peoples' experiences rather than random quotes out of a book any day.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, that is the topic of this thread, isn't it? You might call it "messing around for fun"... we call it "holding up a mirror to your claims".

Yep, interesting how believers find the arguments for their gods unconvincing when used for other invisible beings. Special pleading at work, I'd imagine.

 

[Colter]

Unless you can get it to post in this thread, all we have is your claims on the matter.

And the only proof you offer of your skepticism is being a skeptic.