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

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I'm a fairly new atheist, only a few years or so and I'm already at a point where I would literally have to meet God face-to-face (with all of the morbid jokes that that implies) to believe that god exists. i.e. his actual existence would have to be demonstrated. Not evidence of some power that's attributed to him or evidence of the effects of something people believe about him, but his actual existence in the real world. I'm a hard sell.

In order for me to convert back to Christianity you would have to physically, as in "in the flesh", introduce me to a man named Jesus or Joshua who could break the laws of physics under strictly controlled conditions at will in the name of Yahweh.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Example: a book that can be read by anyone, even the illiterate, regardless of the language a person speaks or the state of their eyesight. The same message would be conveyed to everyone.

And I mean a single, individual book, not a text that has been translated into multiple languages or anything like that. This is something I would qualify as a miracle. While direct interaction with a deity would of course be evidence enough for me, I would not necessarily need such interaction to believe in a deity.

I have plenty of examples of such things I would view as miracles. Another one is "a chunk of granite that will skip across a body of water no matter how it is thrown or who throws it", which would be especially impressive if the shape of said rock is irregular and generally not suitable for such an activity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

And maybe, not then.

 

[Kylie]

No! What you said that I responded to was "And lo, all living things were made up of tiny bags, filled mostly with water, but also other things which made them work together. And in the heart of each bag there was a great source of control, for it carried the instructions that would be followed. And the instructions were spelled with only four letters, but were still so complex that all life could thrive on what they said."

Not "if the Bible had some passage like the one I presented, some scientific knowledge that is clear and unambiguous and could not have been known by anyone at the time it was written, then that would count as evidence."

I thought that it was quite clear that what I originally presented was an example of somethjing which would count as evidence supporting God. Oh well.

In response to this I have no doubt that the Bible is NOT a science book nor was it meant to be...having said that there are some things it says that could not have possibly been known at the time (I have provided two examples so far) but as for specifically statements that indicate scientific fact we must first separate statements made by people in these passages and those allegedly told to someone by God.

A convenient way to get around and explain away any inaccuracies in the Bible.

Job, allegedly written around the time of Abraham but even if later, speaks of what the KJV translators called "recesses" (literally trenches) in the oceans and springs in the deep (Job 38:16) which 1,000s of years later science has proved to actually be there. He was not Job Cousteau and lived in Mesopotamia far from the oceans (which NO ONE at that time were able to explore at such depth). SO there is example number three (and one related to a scientific fact). There are more should you care, but I surmise that even if I give a dozen more you will still not accept them (though you claimed you would).

So, before, when you said the Bible is not a science textbook, you really meant that the Bible is not a science textbook UNLESS IT SUITS YOU TO CLAIM IT IS.

 

[stevil]

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?

These are reasonable questions.

In order to consider evidence, I'd first need to see a properly formulated claim for god(s).
The claim would have to include a definition of god sufficient enough to:
- distinguish a god entity from a non god entity
- perform some type of objective and measurable test or inspection to discover if the entity in question is a god or not. (basically the claim needs to include falsifiable criteria)

With regards to the questions on:
- do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God
- little evidence of God
- just not convincing enough evidence of God
- Do you believe that the topic of God can be studied scientifically?

I'm currently an ignostic atheist. I have yet to see a fully formed claim for god(s) that is sufficient to attempt evaluating.

 

[keith99]

I'm a traditionalist but careful.

I'll accept a burning bush that that is not consumed by the flames and talks coherently.

Of course I won't count it if I'm on the edge of death or after some nice mushrooms or strong drink.

But if Penn Jillette is nearby all bets are off. Especially if he is laughing or even smirking.

 

[Michael]

The "car" and "planet" are experienced in the mind, therefore we still can't say anything is truly "out there". E.g. It would be more accurate to say "I am mentally experiencing something which seems to be a heavy car".

I can also verify it's "heaviness" with a scale.

Yes, but there is no amount of evidence that can prove "God".

Technically there is no amount of evidence that can 'prove' anything in science. Even scientific laws are subject to change if someone can demonstrate a scenario where the law doesn't work right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can also verify it's "heaviness" with a scale.



Technically there is no amount of evidence that can 'prove' anything in science. Even scientific laws are subject to change if someone can demonstrate a scenario where the law doesn't work right.

True, nothing in science is ever proven, at least in an absolute sense. But there are many usages of the word "prove". In the legal system "proof" has a much lower bar, and in that sense many concepts of science are "proven".

 

[Michael]

Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

And maybe, not then.

You doubting Thomas you.

 

[Michael]

True, nothing in science is ever proven, at least in an absolute sense. But there are many usages of the word "prove". In the legal system "proof" has a much lower bar, and in that sense many concepts of science are "proven".

Would you accept the lower bar, and if so, how would you define it?

 

[Michael]

I'm a traditionalist but careful.

I'll accept a burning bush that that is not consumed by the flames and talks coherently.

Of course I won't count it if I'm on the edge of death or after some nice mushrooms or strong drink.

But if Penn Jillette is nearby all bets are off. Especially if he is laughing or even smirking.

LOL! I think he could pull off the burning bush thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you accept the lower bar, and if so, how would you define it?

I long ago posted an answer. If an all knowing, all powerful God existed he would know what evidence would be needed by me. I can't think of an answer that is not somewhat frivolous.

 

[Michael]

These are reasonable questions.

In order to consider evidence, I'd first need to see a properly formulated claim for god(s).
The claim would have to include a definition of god sufficient enough to:
- distinguish a god entity from a non god entity
- perform some type of objective and measurable test or inspection to discover if the entity in question is a god or not. (basically the claim needs to include falsifiable criteria)

With regards to the questions on:
- do you believe that there is "no" evidence of God
- little evidence of God
- just not convincing enough evidence of God
- Do you believe that the topic of God can be studied scientifically?

I'm currently an ignostic atheist. I have yet to see a fully formed claim for god(s) that is sufficient to attempt evaluating.

The 'falsification' requirement doesn't always apply in "science" by the way. How would one falsify string theory? QM definitions of gravity?

There are some definitions of God which are purely empirical by design and could presumably be studied in a purely empirical manner.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

 

[Michael]

I long ago posted an answer. If an all knowing, all powerful God existed he would know what evidence would be needed by me. I can't think of an answer that is not somewhat frivolous.

That seems like a highly subjective, and somewhat cryptically defined definition of the term evidence. Frivolous answers are always welcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That seems like a highly subjective, and somewhat cryptically defined definition of the term evidence. Frivolous answers are always welcome.

The demands of countless people is guaranteed to be subjective. Do you disagree with my answer?

 

[Michael]

Example: a book that can be read by anyone, even the illiterate, regardless of the language a person speaks or the state of their eyesight. The same message would be conveyed to everyone.

And I mean a single, individual book, not a text that has been translated into multiple languages or anything like that. This is something I would qualify as a miracle. While direct interaction with a deity would of course be evidence enough for me, I would not necessarily need such interaction to believe in a deity.

I have plenty of examples of such things I would view as miracles. Another one is "a chunk of granite that will skip across a body of water no matter how it is thrown or who throws it", which would be especially impressive if the shape of said rock is irregular and generally not suitable for such an activity.

The last one sounds down right dangerous.

 

[stevil]

The 'falsification' requirement doesn't always apply in "science" by the way. How would one falsify string theory? QM definitions of gravity?

As far as I know, those aren't accepted scientific theories, string theory is a mathematical model and has not been verified with physical evidence thus far.

There are some definitions of God which are purely empirical by design and could presumably be studied in a purely empirical manner.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

I'll check this out.

 

[Michael]

The demands of countless people is guaranteed to be subjective. Do you disagree with my answer?

I can appreciate the logic of your answer. I'm not suggesting that there is a 'right' answer, or a wrong answer, or that it should be the same for everyone.

 

[Michael]

As far as I know, those aren't accepted scientific theories, string theory is a mathematical model and has not been verified with physical evidence thus far.

There are other examples of "accepted' theories which defy falsification. You'll find some examples in those threads.

 

[Michael]

I'm a fairly new atheist, only a few years or so and I'm already at a point where I would literally have to meet God face-to-face (with all of the morbid jokes that that implies) to believe that god exists. i.e. his actual existence would have to be demonstrated. Not evidence of some power that's attributed to him or evidence of the effects of something people believe about him, but his actual existence in the real world. I'm a hard sell.

In order for me to convert back to Christianity you would have to physically, as in "in the flesh", introduce me to a man named Jesus or Joshua who could break the laws of physics under strictly controlled conditions at will in the name of Yahweh.

I tend to agree that you're a bit of a hard sell.