What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[kristina411]

Does this excuse your behaviour?


Why, thanks. A little late.


Are you not aware that video and photographic evidence can be faked?


That millions believe something does not make it reality. What of the millions that believe differently, in the case of religions? They cannot all be right.


There are neuroscientific explanations for why people 'hear voices'. We are no longer limited to blaming gods and demons.


I do accept this as evidence. It is evidence that with selection and confirmation bias, one can perceive the statistically random as having agency. As evidence for gods, it is lacking.

Michael Shermer » Agenticity

I do accept this as evidence. It is evidence that religions are well-tailored to take advantage of our story telling - and story accepting - nature. It is evidence that religions have evolved along with culture, as a "meme".


I do not see religiosity as a sign of mental weakness. Religion has evolved to take advantage how our brains work, and is perfectly normal - although, I would say, not necessary.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not evident that you have a clear understanding of those terms.


I do acknowledge the evidence that you allude to. I am just not convinced that it points to the same conclusion that you work from.


No, it is not. It has been examined, and found lacking. That you find it convincing and feel that it comports with your beliefs does not make it so for everyone.


No, it does not. I have no such determination. As I have said elsewhere in these forums, why would I not want to believe that there is something more to a human's existence than this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Colter]

"Science ends its reason-search in the hypothesis of a First Cause. Religion does not stop in its flight of faith until it is sure of a God of salvation. The discriminating study of science logically suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute. Religion believes unreservedly in the existence and reality of a God who fosters personality survival. What metaphysics fails utterly in doing, and what even philosophy fails partially in doing, revelation does; that is, affirms that this First Cause of science and religion’s God of salvation are one and the same Deity." UB 1955​

Paper 101 - The Real Nature of Religion | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Science ends its reason-search in the hypothesis of a First Cause. Religion does not stop in its flight of faith until it is sure of a God of salvation. The discriminating study of science logically suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute. Religion believes unreservedly in the existence and reality of a God who fosters personality survival. What metaphysics fails utterly in doing, and what even philosophy fails partially in doing, revelation does; that is, affirms that this First Cause of science and religion’s God of salvation are one and the same Deity." UB 1955​

Paper 101 - The Real Nature of Religion | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation​

So where science stops because we must honestly admit that we do not know, religion marches on, pretending to have found the answer.

 

[Colter]

So where science stops because we must honestly admit that we do not know, religion marches on, pretending to have found the answer.

The consciousness of faith is not "pretending". That leads me to wonder, were you just pretending in religion and got tired of pretending so you assume everyone else in religion is pretending? Did you read the rest of the section?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The consciousness of faith is not "pretending".

It's not pretending in the sense of imagination, but it is pretending to have knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

It's not pretending in the sense of imagination, but it is pretending to have knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's an accusation that, because it can't be defended, is in the minds of skeptics, proof of your accusation. That entire transaction then becomes knowledge to you? Weird!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The consciousness of faith is not "pretending". That leads me to wonder, were you just pretending in religion and got tired of pretending so you assume everyone else in religion is pretending? Did you read the rest of the section?

As Mark pointed out, the issue is the claim to knowledge that religionists frequently make on matters about which we know little. In an area where science admits ignorance, religion often goes beyond faith to make pretence to knowledge.

 

[Colter]

As Mark pointed out, the issue is the claim to knowledge that religionists frequently make on matters about which we know little. In an area where science admits ignorance, religion often goes beyond faith to make pretence to knowledge.

True, and where religion asserts unsubstantiated scientific knowledge as scientific then religion is wrong, it has wondered out of its realm into a place it should not be! The same is true of science morphing into a philosophy.

"The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction. God can be realized only in the realms of human experience; nevertheless, the true concept of the reality of God is reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy, essential to religion, and indispensable to any hope of personality survival.

Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another. The existence of God is utterly beyond all possibility of demonstration except for the contact between the God-consciousness of the human mind and the God-presence of the Thought Adjuster that indwells the mortal intellect and is bestowed upon man as the free gift of the Universal Father." UB 1955
​

Paper 1 - The Universal Father | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

True, and where religion asserts unsubstantiated scientific knowledge as scientific then religion is wrong, it has wondered out of its realm into a place it should not be! The same is true of science morphing into a philosophy.

What place should it be?

"The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction. God can be realized only in the realms of human experience; nevertheless, the true concept of the reality of God is reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy, essential to religion, and indispensable to any hope of personality survival.

Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another.​

We've already been through the questions that this raises. I'm waiting on your answers.​

 

[Freodin]

The prime advantage of religious revelation is that is has never to reveal something that is previously unknown or testable... and can still be touted as the ultimate source of knowledge.

For example, the Urantia books tells these amazing things about our world... that we are numbered as planet 606 in the "local system" (some kind of adminsitrative unit that the... whoever... use).
It also tells us about the prime / oldest world in this "local system" (which is called - no joke - Satania) is called Anova, and is "revealed" to be "one of 44 satelites that orbit an enourmous black planet, but is exposed to the light of three neighboring suns". (UB 49:0.5)

Fantastic informations! Of course, mostly untestable.

At the time the UB was written (oh, sorry! "revealed"), there wasn't even a hint that at one time, it could be possible to detect planets around a distant star. Now it is.
Had the UB "revealed" that this planet / satelite "Anova" was situated at this or that stellar position... perhaps now we would have been able to verify this information.

Of course, no such testable information exists with the vast "revelation" of the UB.

"Anova" is said to be in a state of "advanced stadium of progressive civilization"... assumably more advanced and more progressed than our poor rank 606 planet.

The revelation of some advanced technique that this civilization used would have had enourmous impact on our world. But there is none. Not a hint. The Urantia book tells us the names of the universal prime minister and the layout of his home... very important things for us to "know"... but nothing about how to deal with radioactive waste or how to build quantum computers.


I really really do wonder why this is.

 

[Colter]

What place should it be?



We've already been through the questions that this raises. I'm waiting on your answers.

* Religion should be in the realm of religion.

* I've answered your questions, you just didn't like the answers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* Religion should be in the realm of religion.

And that realm consists in?

* I've answered your questions, you just didn't like the answers.

No, you side-stepped them. You invoked a "spiritual method" as the answer, never bothered to elucidate what it entailed beyond merely "self-validating" one's existing faith, and then quoted the UB some more. Of course I'm not satisfied with that. Would you be?

 

[KCfromNC]

Think it no small coincidence that Jesus has come out looking for you Archaeopteryx.

Time for a restraining order?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The prime advantage of religious revelation is that is has never to reveal something that is previously unknown or testable... and can still be touted as the ultimate source of knowledge.

For example, the Urantia books tells these amazing things about our world... that we are numbered as planet 606 in the "local system" (some kind of adminsitrative unit that the... whoever... use).
It also tells us about the prime / oldest world in this "local system" (which is called - no joke - Satania) is called Anova, and is "revealed" to be "one of 44 satelites that orbit an enourmous black planet, but is exposed to the light of three neighboring suns". (UB 49:0.5)

Fantastic informations! Of course, mostly untestable.

At the time the UB was written (oh, sorry! "revealed"), there wasn't even a hint that at one time, it could be possible to detect planets around a distant star. Now it is.
Had the UB "revealed" that this planet / satelite "Anova" was situated at this or that stellar position... perhaps now we would have been able to verify this information.

Of course, no such testable information exists with the vast "revelation" of the UB.

"Anova" is said to be in a state of "advanced stadium of progressive civilization"... assumably more advanced and more progressed than our poor rank 606 planet.

The revelation of some advanced technique that this civilization used would have had enourmous impact on our world. But there is none. Not a hint. The Urantia book tells us the names of the universal prime minister and the layout of his home... very important things for us to "know"... but nothing about how to deal with radioactive waste or how to build quantum computers.


I really really do wonder why this is.

As Colter beautifully explained, each new revelation represents an the improvement on its antecedents and a new stage in our enlightenment as a species. It's my hope that in the next revelation we will finally learn how many angels fit on the head of a pin. With that vital knowledge we shall be ever more enlightened than we are at present.

 

[kristina411]

* Religion should be in the realm of religion.

* I've answered your questions, you just didn't like the answers.

Remember Matthew 7:6. I've been having trouble remembering myself but am going to put forth real effort to do so.
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

The word is what is holy, the evidence are the pearls.

To some, the holy and the pearls are stepped on (by utter denial/mockery/deceit/trickery) and you are now "being torn to pieces." You are holding your own for sure but remember there are millions out there willing and needing to hear about God. The ones who blatantly deny/mock/deceive/trick, will not be moved. They have the heart of the pharaoh. I am trying to remember this myself. Take care!

 

[Colter]

And that realm consists in?



No, you side-stepped them. You invoked a "spiritual method" as the answer, never bothered to elucidate what it entailed beyond merely "self-validating" one's existing faith, and then quoted the UB some more. Of course I'm not satisfied with that. Would you be?

* Religion, like philosophy is in the realm of philosophy.

* I haven't side stepped, you act like an interrogator with the answers already in mind, when you don't get the desired answer you come up with more disingenuous questions.

------->"God can be realized only in the realms of human experience."<--------

 

[KCfromNC]

I have said the same thing through pm to another poster but I ask this, in consideration of evidence:
For those who say they would need video or photo evidence, if that is the case do you believe aliens exist? There have been countless "actual footage" videos that support UFOs. Knowing they could be forged would be just another excuse for skeptics, just like ufo/alien footage that had been edited

Are you saying you believe the video evidence for UFOs is convincing to you?

For those who would require speaking to God in person as your evidence, do you call the people who claim to have spoken to God themselves "delusional" or "hallucinating"?

Do you? After all, you haven't converted to worshiping each and every one of the thousands of mutually exclusive gods humans have claimed to communicate with so you must find some fault in their testimony. How about you lead by example here and we'll see how well that works.

For those who would require witness from a trusted person, if millions are witness every day and have been for thousands of years, that should be just as trustworthy.

Again, let us know when you convert to all of the mutually contradictory religions trustworthy people believe.

It has been twisted in such a way that evidence will never be satisfactory to everyone, because God wants us to have faith, not be forced to believe.

I don't get this at all. There are lots of things I believe are real - GoP politicians, reality TV, etc - that I don't follow and worship. Why would gods be any different?

The evidence will never be sufficient so long as someone is constantly looking for fault.

Really? That's the very basis of scientific investigation and it has made lots of progress in discovering all sorts of convincing things about reality. Wonder why gods are so different.

God has designed it to be so and it is repeated that we should not seek proof. There is just cause for this.

A powerful being hiding from us and then punishing us for not finding it? What's just about that? Sounds like Loki, not the Christian god.

One thing to add, since there have been skeptics for thousands of years, with no luck (not happening)

No idea what you're getting at here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* Religion, like philosophy is in the realm of philosophy.

Hmmm... I'm not too sure about that. Religion does indeed touch upon many philosophical matters, and religion can be examined philosophically, but whether it's "in the realm" seems debatable to me.

* I haven't side stepped, you act like an interrogator with the answers already in mind, when you don't get the desired answer you come up with more disingenuous questions.

------->"God can be realized only in the realms of human experience."<--------

If you had not side-stepped the questions they would not keep coming up. I'm not the only one to have asked either.

What was disingenuous about the questions?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Remember Matthew 7:6. I've been having trouble remembering myself but am going to put forth real effort to do so.
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

The word is what is holy, the evidence are the pearls.

To some, the holy and the pearls are stepped on (by utter denial/mockery/deceit/trickery) and you are now "being torn to pieces." You are holding your own for sure but remember there are millions out there willing and needing to hear about God. The ones who blatantly deny/mock/deceive/trick, will not be moved. They have the heart of the pharaoh. I am trying to remember this myself. Take care!

If I am not mistaken, wasn't it God that hardened Pharaoh's heart?

 

[KCfromNC]

You are just proving my point. That skeptics will find fault no matter what the evidence shows.

So you're saying you do accept the personal testimony of UFO hunters. Or maybe you're a skeptic who "will find fault no matter what the evidence shows."

Or maybe there are other options besides the unreasonable ones you're trying to pin on everyone else.