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

[Halbhh]

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

Ok, you could even apply that to the sun. Suppose instead of eyes, you had a vibrational sense like some fish have. I could say to you the sun exists, having experienced it directly, over and over, but you could still say that proves nothing. A better analogy though is that this is somewhat like a special door you have to go through, and a church is not the door, but instead it is truly seeking God Himself with all of your heart (chruch has nothing to do with that typically).

 

[ananda]

Ok, you could even apply that to the sun. Suppose instead of eyes, you had a vibrational sense like some fish have. I could say to you the sun exists, having experienced it directly, over and over, but you could still say that proves nothing. A better analogy though is that this is somewhat like a special door you have to go through, and a church is not the door, but instead it is truly seeking God Himself with all of your heart (chruch has nothing to do with that typically).

Having experienced the sun, at most I could only say that the sun exists, that it is bright, and warm. I could not take a leap to say that the sun is Almighty and Eternal.

 

[Halbhh]

Having experienced the sun, at most I could only say that the sun exists, that it is bright, and warm. I could not take a leap to say that the sun is Almighty and Eternal.

Indeed! Even while I expect that in about a billion years it would overheat the Earth, and in another 4 billion turn into a Red Giant, and know it's not eternal as it is....God on the other hand would by definition be transcendent. That is, instead of being subject to nature, as the initiator He'd be somehow independent of nature as we know it, at least independent of limits we are accustomed to and even limits we understand in physics.

 

[Michael]

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

So we can describe the "effects" of God on humans and use that effect as evidence of God, just like you're describing the effect/observation of photon redshift and using that observation as "evidence" of 'space expansion'.

 

[AirPo]

So we can describe the "effects" of God on humans and use that effect as evidence of God, just like you're describing the effect/observation of photon redshift and using that observation as "evidence" of 'space expansion'.

Nope.

 

[jayem]

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.

So you're saying that worshipping Allah is the same as worshipping Jesus. Just different names for the same god. Which is fine, if that's what you believe. I just want to understand clearly.

 

[ananda]

God on the other hand would by definition be transcendent. That is, instead of being subject to nature, as the initiator He'd be somehow independent of nature as we know it, at least independent of limits we are accustomed to and even limits we understand in physics.

Isn't this all conjecture?

 

[Halbhh]

Isn't this all conjecture?

On the question of whether He is able to do the seemingly impossible, I have found He can. When we say "God" I think at least many of us are thinking a transcendent God we cannot fully know all about. Saying the relation of God to nature in the converse is better perhaps -- He is not limited by nature in ways we know of according to scriptures. Further, He is the originator of all we see, according to scripture, which strongly suggests He is somehow independent of limits we know about.

 

[ananda]

On the question of whether He is able to do the seemingly impossible, I have found He can. When we say "God" I think at least many of us are thinking a transcendent God we cannot fully know all about. Saying the relation of God to nature in the converse is better perhaps -- He is not limited by nature in ways we know of according to scriptures. Further, He is the originator of all we see, according to scripture, which strongly suggests He is somehow independent of limits we know about.

Still conjecture. Saying "Being 'A' is active in my life" does not teach us that "Being 'A' is eternal or omnimax/God".

 

[Halbhh]

Still conjecture. Saying "Being 'A' is active in my life" does not teach us that "Being 'A' is eternal or omnimax/God".

Right! So, I tested and tested.

I've learned first hand that each thing Christ said I could find out about in any manner turns out correct, a perfect score. That's including both things one can test before one truly comes to faith, and then also things one can test only by means of faith, and finally, things one can experience only by doing things He said to do in a true way, "in spirit and in truth". That's also only with faith. So, a lot of things, but I've told you about one of the most interesting tests you can test even without any faith, the teaching to "love your enemy", meaning not merely to refrain from striking them, or merely tolerate them, but to actively love them with actions and words and attitude in a way that they can't help but notice.

 

[ananda]

Right! So, I tested and tested.

I've learned first hand that each thing Christ said I could find out about in any manner turns out correct, a perfect score. That's including both things one can test before one truly comes to faith, and then also things one can test only by means of faith, and finally, things one can experience only by doing things He said to do in a true way, "in spirit and in truth". That's also only with faith. So, a lot of things, but I've told you about one of the most interesting tests you can test even without any faith, the teaching to "love your enemy", meaning not merely to refrain from striking them, or merely tolerate them, but to actively love them with actions and words and attitude in a way that they can't help but notice.

That's fine and all, but like I said, it doesn't prove that Christ is God.

 

[Halbhh]

That's fine and all, but like I said, it doesn't prove that Christ is God.

Right, it does not. You'd have to find out then. That was a step I took, finally. I wanted to find God. He lets us find Him if we are seeking Him with all of our heart, with true good intention. It's a leap of faith to seek to find God.

Christ said:

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

 

[ananda]

Right, it does not. You'd have to find out then. That was a step I took, finally. I wanted to find God. He lets us find Him if we are seeking Him with all of our heart, with true good intention. It's a leap of faith to seek to find God.

Christ said:

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Glad to hear that you found fulfillment in your path

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm curious to know what type of 'evidence' of God that the resident atheists around here might accept, and find compelling? At the present moment, do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God, little evidence of God or just not convincing enough evidence of God for your personal tastes? Do you believe that the topic of God can be studied scientifically? Must all cause/effect relationship be demonstrated empirically in controlled experimentation to your personal satisfaction, or would you accept simple uncontrolled observations as a form of "evidence", even if it's less than convincing evidence?

There's lots of "types" of evidence of god that I would accept. I think the easiest, since he's a god, would be direct experience. If god were to appear before me, and demonstrate his godhood, that would be sufficient evidence for me...

For whatever reason though, it seems like whenever I give this kind of answer to christians, they act as if this is some kind of unreasonable request...though I'm not really sure why. For a god, this would be something that requires minimal effort.

 

[quatona]

I'm curious to know what type of 'evidence' of God that the resident atheists around here might accept, and find compelling? At the present moment, do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God, little evidence of God or just not convincing enough evidence of God for your personal tastes? Do you believe that the topic of God can be studied scientifically? Must all cause/effect relationship be demonstrated empirically in controlled experimentation to your personal satisfaction, or would you accept simple uncontrolled observations as a form of "evidence", even if it's less than convincing evidence?

"God"? What do you mean?

 

[pitabread]

I'm curious to know what type of 'evidence' of God that the resident atheists around here might accept, and find compelling?

I suppose it depends on what type of 'god' we're talking about.

But if it's the type of supernatural deity promoted by your mainstream world religions, then I'd need evidence on par with any other phenomenon. Basically, there needs to be some sort of detectable measure that specifically applies to said deity that is readily repeatable, not contingent on pre-existing belief, and not otherwise explainable by more mundane phenomenon.

It basically comes down to extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence. Show me the extraordinary evidence.

At the present moment, do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God, little evidence of God or just not convincing enough evidence of God for your personal tastes?

No evidence. At least nothing that suggests the existence of a supernatural deity as per your mainstream, Western religions.

In general, I've found people's personal testimony to be a combination of cultural influence coupled with mundane phenomenon which they then ascribe to supernatural origins. And that sometimes includes things I've experienced myself, but I have no reason to believe there is anything supernatural involved (particularly things related to sleep and dream related phenomena).

 

[pitabread]

Let me suggest that the person needs to want to believe.

And this is what so uncompelling about belief in the supernatural. If pre-existing belief is a requirement to believe in something, then it entirely defeats the purpose of presenting evidence for it.

If it was genuinely possible to present evidence for god's existence, then it should be able to convince the most ardent skeptic. But evidently it's not.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Is the roaring of a lion "natural"? If yes, then why is a human testimony (voice) not "natural"?
Why not it be both natural and supernatural?

 

[Speedwell]

There's lots of "types" of evidence of god that I would accept. I think the easiest, since he's a god, would be direct experience. If god were to appear before me, and demonstrate his godhood, that would be sufficient evidence for me...

For whatever reason though, it seems like whenever I give this kind of answer to christians, they act as if this is some kind of unreasonable request...though I'm not really sure why. For a god, this would be something that requires minimal effort.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. There are many Christians who owe their faith to some kind of personal experience of Christ.

But it is not evidence of the kind creationists need to impose their theology on the rest of us.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. There are many Christians who owe their faith to some kind of personal experience of Christ.

But it is not evidence of the kind creationists need to impose their theology on the rest of us.

Thanks Speed...frankly I think it sounds perfectly reasonable too. Given the significance of the claims involved with the existence of a god, direct evidence seems like a rather low bar for god to clear.

What's more, is if god is the god of a religion, then it seems like asking for direct evidence of his existence is a tiny request compared to the requests he makes of mankind.