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

[Tanj]

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

The kind that is repeatable and testable in a lab.

 

[jayem]

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?

Yes, the roar of a lion is natural behavior. And humans speaking is also natural. But so is the fact that humans lie. And have fertile imaginations. And make up stories of things that didn't happen. Which is where the supernatural originates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Personal experience is only personal evidence at best, and I quite often doubt that. Some of our posters here claim to have had personal experiences, but the only "evidence" of it is that they seem to be totally sure of themselves even though they cannot support their claims at all. And of course they tend to be different from others that had a "personal experience".

 

[jayem]

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.

That's pretty much the same for me. If there is a god, who has supernatural abilities, then he/she/it would know exactly what would make me a believer. And if it's part of this god's plan that I should believe, then he/she/it will arrange events so that it happens.

In short, for me to believe in god, would take an act of god.

 

[pescador]

When someone meets God, they know it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I was an atheist for many years until God revealed himself to me. I was in the hospital with a severe asthma attack that the doctors couldn't break. A pastor prayed, "Jesus, heal this man". I was immediately healed and felt a supernatural force flowing through my entire body. Any doubts I had about the existence of God vanished. (Remember, I was very weak and could hardly breathe.) A day alter God gifted me with my personal prayer language.

You can doubt God's existence all you want, but to me it is tragic that you remain ignorant in your state of unbelief.

 

[Michael]

The kind that is repeatable and testable in a lab.

Since your background is biology, I can understand your preference for a purely empirical cause/effect definition of evidence.

Do you apply that same empirical cause/effect standard of evidence to all branches of science, including particle physics and astronomy? Can I safely assume that you also "lack belief" in all hypothetical claims as to cause which do not enjoy empirical support in the lab, like QM definitions of gravity involving hypothetical gravitons, non standard particle physics models, and big bang theory?

 

[Michael]

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

Don't let me define the term for you. I'd rather you do that, and explain what type of evidence you might accept. I'm not insisting on any particular qualities per se, although it would have to involve some type of intelligence beyond the human level.

But if it's the type of supernatural deity promoted by your mainstream world religions,

Woah. I'm not shoving any particular definition of the term down your throat. I'd rather not do that in fact.

then I'd need evidence on par with any other phenomenon.

How are you defining the term "evidence"? Is there "evidence" for non standard models of particle physics, or big bang theory in your opinion? Is your standard of evidence purely empirical, or something more along the lines of the way the term is used in astronomy today? Like the stars in distant galaxies, nobody really professes to "control" God, so any type of 'evidence' used in at least some branches of physics is not typically a purely empirical (lab demonstrable) standard of evidence.

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.

One such "experiment" was described by a Christian earlier in this thread. Have you tried that particular technique?

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

I'm not defining God in this thread, I'd rather you do that. God can be extraordinary if you like, but I'm not emotionally attached to God being anything other than "natural" and consistent with the laws of physics.

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

I'm not claiming to own anyone else's religion, other than my own, and I don't define God as a "supernatural" entity to begin with. You're welcome to reject any and all "supernatural" definitions of the term "God" as you see fit. It's no skin off my nose.

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.

Not everyone ascribes such experiences to "supernatural" origins. I can appreciate the "natural beauty" of the planet and have a "spiritual" experience without evoking anything particularly "supernatural" in origin.

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).

Like I said, I'm not emotionally attached your definition of the term God, I'd rather you do that yourself, and explain what type of evidence you might accept for whatever definition of that term you choose.

 

[Michael]

That's pretty much the same for me. If there is a god, who has supernatural abilities, then he/she/it would know exactly what would make me a believer. And if it's part of this god's plan that I should believe, then he/she/it will arrange events so that it happens.

In short, for me to believe in god, would take an act of god.

Hmmm. I guess the basic problem I have with that line of thinking is that science doesn't really work like that. We have to actively investigate things to discover the way things work, and to find 'evidence' of everything else. Why would you just assume that God "owes" you something, even life itself?

 

[Tanj]

Since your background is biology, I can understand your preference for a purely empirical cause/effect definition of evidence.

lol. Actually it's not true, I was actually channelling previous comments by you, and being satirical at the same time. I work in biomedical sciences and do a lot of work with patient cohorts. Unsurprisingly, we don't keep them in cages. The idea that real science "can only be done in a lab" is ridiculous.

Do you apply that same empirical cause/effect standard of evidence to all branches of science, including particle physics and astronomy?

I don't critique other areas of science because i have no training, education or experience in any of them. If pressed I'll accept the current consensus, if there is one.

My real response to your initial question is the same as one of the previous posters: I have no idea what evidence would convince me, but the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God of the bible sure does.

 

[Michael]

Personal experience is only personal evidence at best, and I quite often doubt that. Some of our posters here claim to have had personal experiences, but the only "evidence" of it is that they seem to be totally sure of themselves even though they cannot support their claims at all. And of course they tend to be different from others that had a "personal experience".

Two points:

People are *correctly* convicted of crimes every day based on human testimony. Their experiences are considered "evidence" in a court of law.

Why would you expect everyone to have exactly the same experience of God when we don't even have exactly the same experiences of each other? Often our own biases dictate our perceptions of other human beings, so why would you expect those biases to play no role in their experiences of God?

 

[Cearbhall]

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

I can't really think of anything. Aliens would be a much more likely explanation for any occurrences that are beyond our understanding or that seem to mimic our religions, and I mean that seriously.

 

[xianghua]

In a general sense we're simply discussing evidence of God, not religion. Christianity teaches that Christ was God residing in human form, teaching us the moral values of God in human form, and living those morals in human form. Other religions may (and theoretically should) contain those same moral values somewhere in the religion if those religious values actually come from God/Christ. That shouldn't be surprising in other words.

check also my argument here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[Michael]

I can't really think of anything. Aliens would be a much more likely explanation for any occurrences that are beyond our understanding or that seem to mimic our religions, and I mean that seriously.

Ok. Thanks for responding.

 

[Michael]

"God": The good ol´ invisible personal bearded sky daddy who plays hide and seek, who impregnates virgins, who can alter the natural laws at will etc..
Evidence: A thundering voice announcing that the earth rotation will stop for a few minutes, and this actually happening - that would be a good start.
...
"God" is another word for "everything that exists". That everything that exists exists is axiomatic to the point of being tautological, so I am a theist in regards to that God definition.

Well, you certainly covered a wide range of definitions. Thanks for playing.

 

[Freodin]

Oh, oh, me! Pick me!

Let's say we include some very simple, basic ideas in the concept of "God".
That it has "knowlegde" far greater than any human can have... perhaps even unlimited.
That it is in communication with human beings.
That is can share its knowledge.

I have a perfect piece of evidence, that I would accept as comming from such a "God".

Sadly, everytime I ask for it, I only get human responses of why I won't get it.

 

[pitabread]

Don't let me define the term for you. I'd rather you do that, and explain what type of evidence you might accept. I'm not insisting on any particular qualities per se, although it would have to involve some type of intelligence beyond the human level.

Ok, then there are two variations:

The first is an abstract, deist view, where a 'god' or gods exists outside of the known universe, possibly created said universe, but otherwise does not directly interact with it. In this scenario, I don't believe it would be possible to proffer any evidence for such a being.

The second is the more personal type of god, typical of Western religions, that has a vested interest in the goings on of our little planet and its inhabitants. Assuming said god is an all-powerful, supernatural deity, then I think a clear demonstration of said ability is needed. A giant manifestation in the heavens, booming voice, that sort of thing. Basically something completely unambiguous and bombastic that leaves zero doubt it is the work of a supernatural being.

That would do it, I think.

 

[Kylie]

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?

Something in the Bible that clearly describes something that was not known until centuries later. If the Bible described micro-organisms causing disease, for example.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

posts have been removed for flaming/goading/off topic discussion/promoting another religion

chronic flamers/goaders will no longer be able to post in this thread

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Something in the Bible that clearly describes something that was not known until centuries later. If the Bible described micro-organisms causing disease, for example.

That could be an inspired guess - but if it clearly described DNA, one would have pause for thought

 

[Kylie]

That could be an inspired guess - but if it clearly described DNA, one would have pause for thought

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.