What type of "evidence" of God would an atheist accept?

[Halbhh]

I cannot think of any such evidence.

It's hard to do, but find the one person that is an enemy or like one, or the closest to being your enemy, or simply the hardest to like, or simply the hardest to love.

Any. That one person.

Then, do the very hard test of really loving them, treating them with love, and positive regard, and being really friendly, especially to them in particular. And in your own thoughts even to have sympathy for their point of view (!) (I know, that one could be difficult to do).

Do it.

And then find out what happens.

That's the 'evidence' for you, on a personal level, about the teaching of Jesus:

"Love your enemy"

It was the one teaching of His that I thought was the most likely not to work. But it worked very very well.

 

[Michael]

None that I can think of. But that really just boils down to semantics I guess. If it's not natural, wouldn't accept it. If it's natural, then it can't be evidence for the supernatural.

Do you impose that requirement on all topics in science, or just to the topic of God? For instance, do you hold belief (even tentative belief) in big bang theory, or concepts like 'magnetic reconnection', or do you lack belief in them in spite of their 'popularity'?

Are you willing to pay for, or engage in ''experiments" which hope to discover empirical evidence of God 'some day', like dark matter experiments, or a search for gravitons or SUSY particles?

 

[Halbhh]

Then you do not understand the meaning of "value" in the context of doing a test.

Ok.

But it worked. Great.

 

[Michael]

A smack across the face by St Michael the Archangel! Lol

 

[Michael]

Then you do not understand the meaning of "value" in the context of doing a test.

Value to whom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok.

But it worked. Great.

I am glad that it worked for you. But "love your enemy" is hardly a Christian monopoly. Both Sikhs and Buddhists have almost identical exhortations. I am sure that there are others as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Value to whom?

Value in the sense of supporting an argument or concept.

 

[ananda]

It's hard to do, but find the one person that is an enemy or like one, or the closest to being your enemy, or simply the hardest to like, or simply the hardest to love.

Any. That one person.

Then, do the very hard test of really loving them, treating them with love, and positive regard, and being really friendly, especially to them in particular. And in your own thoughts even to have sympathy for their point of view (!) (I know, that one could be difficult to do).

Do it.

And then find out what happens.

That's the 'evidence' for you, on a personal level, about the teaching of Jesus:

"Love your enemy"

It was the one teaching of His that I thought was the most likely not to work. But it worked very very well.

How does your test relate to the topic, "evidence of God"?

 

[AirPo]

Do you impose that requirement on all topics in science, or just to the topic of God? For instance, do you hold belief (even tentative belief) in big bang theory, or concepts like 'magnetic reconnection', or do you lack belief in them in spite of their 'popularity'?

Are you willing to pay for, or engage in ''experiments" which hope to discover empirical evidence of God 'some day', like dark matter experiments, or a search for gravitons or SUSY particles?

Since there is evidence for the big bang theory, yes.

 

[jayem]

Fair enough. Would you say there is no evidence of God, very limited evidence of God, or less than convincing evidence of God?

I'll put it this way: Would you say there is evidence of Brahma, or Marduk, or Thor? I think of the Abrahamic god, the same way. And that holds for all gods of all religions. They're all products of the human imagination.

 

[Speedwell]

That same criticism is also true of existence of exotic forms of matter, exotic forms of energy, multiverses, gravitons, SUSY particles, etc. The fact various ideas cannot be falsified never stopped anyone from presenting 'evidence' to support/refute these ideas and study them "scientifically". Why would the topic of God require "falsification" simply to be studied scientifically?



I'm not talking about theology at all, I'm talking about physics and science ultimately. If concepts like LCDM can be studied "scientifically" and "evidence" can exist for something like "dark energy", then the topic of God can also be studied from the perspective of science and "evidence" too. In science, "evidence" of hypothetical concepts can be based on the effect which is observed in uncontrolled observation, not just from cause/effect relationships which can be studied in the lab in controlled experimentation.

If anybody is offering "evidence" to support/refute a proposition then the proposition is being treated, correctly or incorrectly, as a falsifiable proposition. Likewise, if you are going to regard the existence of God as a scientifically testable proposition. You must, in the course of your investigation, assign hypothetical attributes to "God" and that, my friend, is theology.

 

[Halbhh]

How does your test relate to the topic, "evidence of God"?

Testing of propositions on how to live.

When Jesus said " love your enemy" I thought that could be too wishful thinking, not really workable in actual life.

I tested it. To my surprise it works. That suggests He could be exceptionally wise and saying true things. Therefore, further reading of what He said and further testing was in order.

Since we are talking about how to live, the only possible test is only trying it out. Either it works or not. One must give it a real try, so I take that "love" to mean the same "love" I would give someone I really like very much. That kind. It worked amazingly, to my surprise. That was merely suggestive, a clue, only. So I proceeded on that clue forwards to test more He said.

 

[Michael]

I'll put it this way: Would you say there is evidence of Brahma, or Marduk, or Thor? I think of the Abrahamic god, the same way. And that holds for all gods of all religions. They're all products of the human imagination.

From my monotheistic perspective you're simply renaming the term "God" to the term that is used in various different religions. There is but one God and many names for that one God IMO.

 

[Michael]

If anybody is offering "evidence" to support/refute a proposition then the proposition is being treated, correctly or incorrectly, as a falsifiable proposition.

In a conceptual sense a hypothetical entity 'might' be falsifiable in theory, but in the real world application, it's usually a lot fuzzier. For instance, how would you go about falsifying string theory, or graviton theory, or even dark matter theories (plural) when there are so many (possibly an infinite number of) potential forms of dark matter to choose from?

Likewise, if you are going to regard the existence of God as a scientifically testable proposition. You must, in the course of your investigation, assign hypothetical attributes to "God" and that, my friend, is theology.

Sure, and I agree, but as is the case with 'dark matter', there are many potential definitions that might (or might not) apply. Even if we could hope to falsify one specific attribute, we couldn't possibly falsify them all. We've literally spent *billions* of dollars trying to verify/falsify dark matter claims. While the results have been negative for 7 decades, hope still seems to spring eternal in the form of Xenon-1T and LUX-LZ.

Falsification isn't really a requirement in "science"

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, and that essentially describes the basis of my walk in the Buddhist Path, which I found to be superior to the Christian path.

I already know that Buddhism has good things in it because I know compassion is a virtue. But for you to actually have walked on the Christian path is more than only doing things Christ said.

To actually walk on the Christian path, you need to truly believe fully in Christ risen from the dead (not just saying, but real belief in the heart, fully), and then learn His way in His words, and then begin putting into practice things He said to do, thus walking on His pathway.

So, it's both real faith and then actual following, both. Not all do in churches, even those raised with the teachings.

 

[ananda]

I already know that Buddhism has good things in it because I know compassion is a virtue. But for you to actually have walked on the Christian path is more than only doing things Christ said.

To actually walk on the Christian path, you need to truly believe fully in Christ risen from the dead (not just saying, but real belief in the heart, fully), and then learn His way in His words, and then begin putting into practice things He said to do, thus walking on His pathway.

So, it's both real faith and then actual following, both. Not all do in churches, even those raised with the teachings.

I walked in the Christian path, as you described, for 30 something years. Then, I found something better!

 

[Michael]

Since there is evidence for the big bang theory, yes.

So you're using the term "evidence" without requiring an empirical cause/effect demonstration of the claim as to cause in controlled experimentation. In other words, you 'hold belief' that 'space expansion' and exotic/invisible forms of matter have a tangible effect on a photon, but you've never those claims demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

You're "assuming" the cause, and basing your "belief" upon an uncontrolled observation and the observation of the effect becomes "evidence" of the "assumed cause".

For instance, photon redshift over distance is an uncontrolled observation. Photon redshift is empirically (in the lab) associated with moving objects and inelastic scattering. However, you choose to hold belief in 'space expansion' as a possible cause of photon redshift in spite of the fact that no such thing can be demonstrated in the lab.

Likewise ordinary matter is known to have a gravitational effect, whereas exotic matter is hypothetical and it's various attributes like invisibility and gravitational effects are 'assumed'.

 

[AirPo]

So you're using the term "evidence" without requiring an empirical cause/effect demonstration of the claim as to cause in controlled experimentation. In other words, you 'hold belief' that 'space expansion' and exotic/invisible forms of matter have a tangible effect on a photon, but you've never those claims demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

You're "assuming" the cause, and basing your "belief" upon an uncontrolled observation and the observation of the effect becomes "evidence" of the "assumed cause".

For instance, photon redshift over distance is an uncontrolled observation. Photon redshift is empirically (in the lab) associated with moving objects and inelastic scattering. However, you choose to hold belief in 'space expansion' as a possible cause of photon redshift in spite of the fact that no such thing can be demonstrated in the lab.

Likewise ordinary matter is known to have a gravitational effect, whereas exotic matter is hypothetical and it's various attributes like invisibility and gravitational effects are 'assumed'.

No, because evidence does not require an empirical cause/effect demonstration of anything. It just is.

 

[Halbhh]

I walked in the Christian path, as you described, for 30 something years. Then, I found something better!

Since I've had prayer after prayer answered, including very amazing ones that seem impossible, I know what Christ said actually works fully. He said even a small amount of faith can do amazing things, and I have confirmation of that, and repeated, and even without any exceptions.

It's like this -- Suppose over 10 years a person bought about 40 lottery tickets.

If they won money on every lottery ticket they bought, $5 here, $100 there, $10,000 on another, and even $500,000 on one and $100,000 on another, and each and every ticket they bought paid, then.....logically, we can see that something is happening that isn't just my guess or just an imagination.

When I am getting to 10 out of 10, and later 25 out of 25, I'm starting to see something I know is real. Like the sun -- it is reliable. It's become a confirmed thing. That's where I am now. He is real, and everything He said works just as He said it. -->But! it can help to know that only some Christians or their churches have learned much of the detailed and precise things He said. (They end up with a version unlike His actual instructions)

So, it's very common that a person thinks they've tried "Christian" but it was some other thing than what He said in His teachings. He's the Real Thing. Christian is real faith and doing the precise things He said, at least for me, and those really do work. Not at all like some (many in a large nation) churches do. Like so many, I had to leave church (in my case far, far behind) in order to find God. Now, I've found a church much more aligned with precise things Christ said, but still the real finding of God is individual and personal and this church itself won't necessarily make anyone find God, nor will the other 5 types I've been in.

 

[ananda]

Since I've had prayer after prayer answered, including very amazing ones that seem impossible, I know what Christ said actually works fully. He said even a small amount of faith can do amazing things, and I have confirmation of that, and repeated, and even without any exceptions.

It's like this -- Suppose over 10 years a person bought about 40 lottery tickets. If they won money on every lottery ticket they bought, $5 here, $100 there, $10,000 on another, and even $500,000 on one and $100,000 on another, and each and every ticket they bought paid, then.....logically, we can see that something is happening that isn't just my guess or just an imagination.

When I am getting to 10 out of 10, and later 25 out of 25, I'm starting to see something I know is real. Like the sun -- it is reliable. It's become a confirmed thing. That's where I am now. He is real, and everything He said works just as He said it. -->But! it can help to know that only some Christians or their churches have learned much of the detailed and precise things He said. (They end up with a version unlike His actual instructions)

So, it's very common that a person thinks they've tried "Christian" but it was some other thing than what He said in His teachings. He's the Real Thing. Christian is real faith and doing the precise things He said, at least for me, and those really do work. Not at all like some (many in a large nation) churches do.

IMO, none of that proves that your chosen deity is Almighty or Eternal, however.