Good evidence

[ArnautDaniel]

For any atheists and/or agnostics out there:

You are likely a non-beleiver because you have not been presented with any good evidence for God's existence. As such, I wanted to ask you what sorts of evidence would be compelling enough to convince you. Does this sort of evidence even exist?

I'll start with some that I think would be convincing:

1) True prophecies recorded in holy scripture. Prophecies must not be overly vague, must not be self fulfilling, and must have actually come true.

2) Evidence that the prayers of certain religous groups are coming true at a rate that is significantly higher than that in the general population.

This one is kind of anecdotal, but I think it would interesting to investigate nonetheless:

3) If people who claimed to have religious experiences, regardless of their religious background, were all claiming to have seen/spoken to the same God. (I.e. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. all having seen Jesus at the time of their experience.) It would be even more compelling if scores of people who had never encountered Christianity were reportedly having religious experiences in which they interacted with Jesus.

Any more thoughts?

A good argument should be one that - if refuted - would cause the person making the argument to reconsider the belief that argument is supposed to support.

The fact is, theists never make an argument which - if refuted - would cause them to reject their beliefs.

There is a certain dishonesty in presenting arguments which don't form the basis of one's own belief system.

I mean if you tell me that miracles are a good reason to believe in god, and then list some miracles, but at the same time are basically saying "miracles aren't really the reason I believe in god so if you showed those miracles never happened it would effect me in the least" then you are telling me the argument doesn't matter.

This is why these proofs never work.

 

[-Vincent-]

I mean if you tell me that miracles are a good reason to believe in god, and then list some miracles, but at the same time are basically saying "miracles aren't really the reason I believe in god so if you showed those miracles never happened it would effect me in the least" then you are telling me the argument doesn't matter.

Most people on the net do not seem to have any idea that they can interact with God. It seems only reasonable to me that knowledge of God should be based on experience of God.

If a person has no such experience and only trusts in various ideas about God, I don't know what might be proven about that...

 

[anonymous1515]

Most people on the net do not seem to have any idea that they can interact with God.

Do you have any evidence that you can show me to demonstrate God's existence? You claim that God is interacting with you - so is there anything you can show me that would convince me of this?

If I was to say "Most people on the net do not seem to have any idea that they can interact with aliens," wouldn't I first have to establish that aliens exist? It seems unreasonable for you to assume that I should go out and try to interact with something that I have no reason to believe exists. Furthermore, an omniscient being would know that I truly want to know whether it exists or not. Why is God so reluctant to show himself to me?

Also, how does God interact with you?

 

[-Vincent-]

It seems unreasonable for you to assume that I should go out and try to interact with something that I have no reason to believe exists. Furthermore, an omniscient being would know that I truly want to know whether it exists or not. Why is God so reluctant to show himself to me?

Also, how does God interact with you?

God responds to various request that I ask of Him.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you say you have no reason to believe that God exists, and yet you say you truly want to know whether he exists.

You say, Why is God so reluctant to show himself to me? Well, I am not going to ask him.

I did ask him one question during the late 1950's and he answered, but I haven't asked any more questions.

In theory of knowledge sense of it, how do you discover what is new? What is old is new they say, and He really is old...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

For any atheists and/or agnostics out there:

You are likely a non-beleiver because you have not been presented with any good evidence for God's existence. As such, I wanted to ask you what sorts of evidence would be compelling enough to convince you. Does this sort of evidence even exist?

No, that sort of evidence does not exist. That is mainly because, the proposition "God exists" first needs to be given some kind of meaning. Until this has been done, it's all just word games at best. Now, if I get to give the word "God" some meaning you'll just end up very quickly in a contradiction in terms. And that is a second reason why evidence for the existence of God cannot exist.

As for other people's definition of the word "God" ... There are so many differences, and yet it is often so utterly devoid of meaning, that all I can say is "Whatever."

But I'll nontheless have a look at what you think would make convincing evidence.

I'll start with some that I think would be convincing:

1) True prophecies recorded in holy scripture. Prophecies must not be overly vague, must not be self fulfilling, and must have actually come true.

Not really convincing no matter what. Even if there are good prophecies, i.e. there are people who can foretell the future, we would at best end up with something that needs an explanation. And I (see above) do not see "God has something to do with it somehow" as a good explanation. If you were to give a good explanation you'd need to fill in what God is for example and explain how that can lead to some guy knowing stuff ahead of time.

2) Evidence that the prayers of certain religous groups are coming true at a rate that is significantly higher than that in the general population.

More problematic than anything else. I am not sure that a God which is commanded about is desirable.

This one is kind of anecdotal, but I think it would interesting to investigate nonetheless:

3) If people who claimed to have religious experiences, regardless of their religious background, were all claiming to have seen/spoken to the same God. (I.e. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. all having seen Jesus at the time of their experience.) It would be even more compelling if scores of people who had never encountered Christianity were reportedly having religious experiences in which they interacted with Jesus.

That is more like it.

Any more thoughts?

I have a splendid idea. We define God into existence. For example we divide up the entirety of stuff that exists into necessary and contigent, and then simply call that which is necessary for the contigent to exist God -- no matter what exactly it is. Or, we call the totality of everything that exists God -- no matter what exactly it may be.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Most people on the net do not seem to have any idea that they can interact with God. It seems only reasonable to me that knowledge of God should be based on experience of God.

If a person has no such experience and only trusts in various ideas about God, I don't know what might be proven about that...

Like I said, there is no point in making an argument if there is no risk on the part of the person making the argument.

Unless the person making the argument is open to the possibility that their argument might be refuted and that refutation will cause them to reexamine their beliefs, then it is all a farce.

 

[-Vincent-]

Like I said, there is no point in making an argument if there is no risk on the part of the person making the argument.

Don't you ever have to argue things that you are certain about? Why are you making this point?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Don't you ever have to argue things that you are certain about? Why are you making this point?

Like what?

I mean I might be really confident that the Earth is round, but I could be wrong....

...

The point I am trying to make is simple.

Suppose I come to you and say I believe B, and I say to you here is an argument A that might convince you of B, but I don't believe in B because of argument A but for other reasons.

I am telling you I don't really place much stock in argument A myself, but maybe you should.

What's the point of even giving the person argument A if I don't believe in B for that reason in the first place?

 

[-Vincent-]

Like what?

I mean I might be really confident that the Earth is round, but I could be wrong....

Well, you might tell someone on the net what your hair color is, and they disagree for some reason, perhaps thinking that you are someone else. Why would allowing that you might be wrong about your own hair color be so necessary?

As far as I know the earth is very spherical when seen from a distance. It deviates from a perfect sphere by less than 1%.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Well, you might tell someone on the net what your hair color is, and they disagree for some reason, perhaps thinking that you are someone else. Why would allowing that you might be wrong about your own hair color be so necessary?

I could be deluded, I could be using the word incorrectly.

As far as I know the earth is very spherical when seen from a distance. It deviates from a perfect sphere by less than 1%.

And your argument is:

"I believe the Earth is round because of satellite photos."

If someone established to you that all satellite photos were frauds you would reconsider your belief that the Earth is round.

You see, the point is that you have gotten back to why you believe something in a way that if your why is demonstrated to be wrong you have to reconsider your beliefs.

But yet, your argument for God doesn't fall back to any such why.

 

[keith99]

For any atheists and/or agnostics out there:
...
I'll start with some that I think would be convincing:

1) True prophecies recorded in holy scripture. Prophecies must not be overly vague, must not be self fulfilling, and must have actually come true.
...
Any more thoughts?

Sorry no where near enough. On the surface all this shows is someone can see into the future, not that there is a God.

But if we were to accept that this is the standard for seeing into the future then there are many people alive today who can see into the future!

To be convincing one must hit several times AND a goodly number of their predictions must have been registered at a common source and known to many BEFORE the event happened. It is NOT good enough to bring out the sealed notarized letter making the prediction after the fact.

There are lots of those today who make and can document their accurate predictions, and that those predictions were not all that vague. What they hide is all the times they missed, often by as far as possible!

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Sorry no where near enough. On the surface all this shows is someone can see into the future, not that there is a God.

But if we were to accept that this is the standard for seeing into the future then there are many people alive today who can see into the future!

To be convincing one must hit several times AND a goodly number of their predictions must have been registered at a common source and known to many BEFORE the event happened. It is NOT good enough to bring out the sealed notarized letter making the prediction after the fact.

There are lots of those today who make and can document their accurate predictions, and that those predictions were not all that vague. What they hide is all the times they missed, often by as far as possible!

It should also be noted that even if we found a biblical prophecy that everyone agreed has not been fulfilled, then the theist would simply say "Oh, that hasn't been fulfilled yet but will be fulfilled in the future".

So if you allow your people that are hiding failed predictions to simply say "Oh you have to appropriately interpret it and understand that it is still pending for the future", then they don't need to hide anything and jump to 100% accuracy.

 

[-Vincent-]

You see, the point is that you have gotten back to why you believe something in a way that if your why is demonstrated to be wrong you have to reconsider your beliefs.

But yet, your argument for God doesn't fall back to any such why.

Well, you could simply adopt solipsism, if you really believe doubt is so essential, I guess...

 

[anonymous1515]

Sorry no where near enough. On the surface all this shows is someone can see into the future, not that there is a God.

Good point. I agree.

But if we were to accept that this is the standard for seeing into the future then there are many people alive today who can see into the future!

To be convincing one must hit several times AND a goodly number of their predictions must have been registered at a common source and known to many BEFORE the event happened. It is NOT good enough to bring out the sealed notarized letter making the prediction after the fact.

Yes, I agree. However, if predictions were recorded in the Bible, we know that they were made before the event actually happened. And yes, I agree with your point about the number of correct hits. It's not particularly impressive if among 100 pages of predictions there is only one that is fulfilled.

Regardless, I haven't seen fulfilled prophecies in the Bible or any other holy scripture.

 

[anonymous1515]

It should also be noted that even if we found a biblical prophecy that everyone agreed has not been fulfilled, then the theist would simply say "Oh, that hasn't been fulfilled yet but will be fulfilled in the future".

So if you allow your people that are hiding failed predictions to simply say "Oh you have to appropriately interpret it and understand that it is still pending for the future", then they don't need to hide anything and jump to 100% accuracy.

Yes, which is why that sort of thing wouldn't be considered evidence of anything. The only thing it is evidence for is that there is a prediction in the Bible that may or may not come true. But, as many other people have pointed out, even having a fulfilled, non-vague prophecy in the Bible is only evidence that somebody may have been able to predict the future -not evidence for God.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Well, you could simply adopt solipsism, if you really believe doubt is so essential, I guess...

You seem to think that a belief can be separated from the reason for holding that belief.

So a person can be certain of something without some reason for any of that.

 

[-Vincent-]

You seem to think that a belief can be separated from the reason for holding that belief.

So a person can be certain of something without some reason for any of that.

Sorry but I do not understand the point that you are making. You seem to be saying that there is no certain way to know facts.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

For any atheists and/or agnostics out there:

You are likely a non-beleiver because you have not been presented with any good evidence for God's existence. As such, I wanted to ask you what sorts of evidence would be compelling enough to convince you. Does this sort of evidence even exist?

I'll start with some that I think would be convincing:

1) True prophecies recorded in holy scripture. Prophecies must not be overly vague, must not be self fulfilling, and must have actually come true.

2) Evidence that the prayers of certain religous groups are coming true at a rate that is significantly higher than that in the general population.

This one is kind of anecdotal, but I think it would interesting to investigate nonetheless:

3) If people who claimed to have religious experiences, regardless of their religious background, were all claiming to have seen/spoken to the same God. (I.e. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. all having seen Jesus at the time of their experience.) It would be even more compelling if scores of people who had never encountered Christianity were reportedly having religious experiences in which they interacted with Jesus.

Any more thoughts?

1,2 would work but there is no evidence for either.
the predictions in the bible are impossible to verify their validity. (when they where written, if certain things happened etc.. not to mention the misses that people ignore. Or things that are likely to happen and get recorrded down when they do)

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Sorry but I do not understand the point that you are making. You seem to be saying that there is no certain way to know facts.

I am saying that every belief we hold can be overturned when new evidence becomes available.

What is unsensible about that?

We believe things because they seem to be the best explanation to account for the evidence we have so far, but when we get more evidence those explanations might fail.

Every belief is tentative and can be overturned with new information.

 

[JGL53]

If he were still alive, I wonder what Miguel de Unamuno would think of this discussion? Probably say everyone is just making category errors, going around in circles and just wasting your time.