What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[cvanwey]

You'ld first have to define this god in a falsifiable manner, so that the claim becomes testable.
As it stands, just about every definition of the abrahamic god I ever got, was an unfalsifiable claim.

Unfalsifiable claims can't have evidence by definition, and are infinite in number. They are utterly useless.

I think we can just all pack our bags, and close shop Meaning, we can just close this thread now.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Can you prove this?

Yes, but you wouldn't accept it. You would just suppress the truth, in your wickedness.

In all seriousness, having the impression, from the outset, that the other person is lying about what they believe is not a good place to start a conversation. You should abandon that impression. Or at the very least, do yourself a favor and have the decorum not to say it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's start with the question in the OP. What would evidence for God's existence be like?

It's kind of hard to answer that question without this god being defined in a falsifiable way.

Unfalsifiable entities, can't have any evidence (pro or con) by definition.

So either it's upto this unfalsifiable entity to make himself known in a rational way
or
You need to come up with a falsifiable definition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's kind of like saying that without trust, it's impossible to have a good marriage. Is that also a scam?

The difference is, that your spouse is demonstrably real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the world that Hebrews was written (the letter that contains this quote) atheism was fairly unheard of. Atheism has always been and will always be a seriously minority position, as religion is inherent in our humanity. We tend to believe in the divine. I suspect that there's really no such thing as atheism at all and that all people believe in God's existence to some extent, however much they suppress it.

Yes, humans have a tendency to being superstitious. Like most animals, by the way.

So, is it your opinion that because people tend to believe certain things, that those things are therefor also accurate and correct?

 

[Uber Genius]

God created a cosmos

God created creatures

Firstly, I was not surprised by the thoughtless responses ignorant of the last 1000 years of these discussions.

We would expect that the fine-tuning atheist cosmologists find in the universe for life, would be a result of design rather than chance or necessity.

We would find the best explanation of objective moral values and duties to be in the existence of an all-good being.

We would expect that the nature of our solar-system and our planet to be life-permitting.

We would find a personal God would be the best explanation for man's search for meaning.

We would find that God being the best explanation for the sudden appearance of massive amounts of information in the first DNA, as opposed to necessity or chance.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Firstly, I was not surprised by the thoughtless responses ignorant of the last 1000 years of these discussions.

You say that, then proceed to list arguments we've all heard hundreds of times. Do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[keith99]

Ah. So one would expect miracles as evidence for God's existence? Christians claim that God has been the author of several miracles in history, the Red Sea event being an important example. These miracles have been recorded and preserved for all to learn about. Why aren't these miracles enough to persuade you that He exists?

Perhaps because this miracle does not show up in the records of Egypt where one would expect it to. In fact as far as I know none of the claimed miracles show up in any external records.

A claim of a miracle is not a miracle.

 

[Petros2015]

Suppose that an all powerful, wise, invisible, eternal, all-knowing, and righteous God created a cosmos like the one we inhabit.

Well, that's a very specific kind of God, which would require some very specific evidence.

You could start with a less specific kind of God and go from there, and see if you find the one you are looking for.

 

[Tree of Life]

Perhaps because this miracle does not show up in the records of Egypt where one would expect it to. In fact as far as I know none of the claimed miracles show up in any external records.

A claim of a miracle is not a miracle.

So a second attestation to a miracle would seal the deal?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So a second attestation to a miracle would seal the deal?

You're asking how you could provide sufficient evidence for a supernatural event that took place in the ancient world - a miracle. I don't even think you can positively and coherently define 'supernatural', but I'll set that aside.

The only kind of evidence that would be available for such a thing in the ancient world, would be eyewitness testimony. I don't accept eyewitness testimony as evidence for supernatural claims.

Neither do you. You don't believe faith healers on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through chakra alignment. You don't believe Muhammad experienced divine revelations. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. And so forth.

So my response is, I don't think you can do it. I think you've saddled yourself with an impossible burden of proof.

Which is your problem, not anyone else's.

 

[Tree of Life]

You're asking how you could provide sufficient evidence for a supernatural event that took place in the ancient world - a miracle. I don't even think you can positively and coherently define 'supernatural', but I'll set that aside.

I don't believe that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" makes any sense. I would not use the word "supernatural".

So my response is, I don't think you can do it. I think you've saddled yourself with an impossible burden of proof.

Which is your problem, not anyone else's.

Are you saying that you don't believe that evidence for God's existence is possible?

 

[ananda]

People ask for evidence for God's existence, but what would evidence for God's existence be like? Join me on this thought experiment...

Suppose that an all powerful, wise, invisible, eternal, all-knowing, and righteous God created a cosmos like the one we inhabit.

Suppose further that this God created creatures like us who are capable of knowing and worshipping Him.

Suppose a bit further that these creatures decided to rebel against their creator, refusing to give Him the worship due to Him and seeking to build a world without Him (although within the world that He created).

What would evidence for the existence of this God be like?

IMO "evidence" is irrelevant, as all evidence must inevitably be interpreted by observers who are observing that evidence. Each observer will come to their own personal conclusions regarding that evidence.

"Proof" is a far more appropriate standard, especially for this topic.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I don't believe that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" makes any sense. I would not use the word "supernatural".

I agree. I think it's a vacuous non-concept.

In that case, let's just call a miracle an extraordinary event that violates the apparent laws of physics.

Are you saying that you don't believe that evidence for God's existence is possible?

I'm saying I don't believe 'eyewitness testimony' is sufficient evidence for miracle claims. And since that is the only type of evidence available for miracles that may have taken place thousands of years ago, you've saddled yourself with an impossible burden of proof.

We haven't even gotten to Yahweh yet, because even if I allow that a miracle took place, that tells us nothing at all about the source of the miracle.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Also, I thought you were a presuppositionalist. What are you doing in the wicked world of evidentialism?

 

[Tree of Life]

IMO "evidence" is irrelevant, as all evidence must inevitably be interpreted by observers who are observing that evidence. Each observer will come to their own personal conclusions regarding that evidence.

"Proof" is a far more appropriate standard, especially for this topic.

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree. I think it's a vacuous non-concept.

In that case, let's just call a miracle an extraordinary event that violates the apparent laws of physics.

That's a fine definition. I would define "miracle" as an extraordinary manifestation of God's Lordship over creation. But this definition is theological.

"Natural" only makes sense when contrasted with "artificial". Beyond that dichotomy, I don't even know what the concept "natural" would mean.

I'm saying I don't believe 'eyewitness testimony' is sufficient evidence for miracle claims. And since that is the only type of evidence available for miracles that may have taken place thousands of years ago, you've saddled yourself with an impossible burden of proof.

Some people do believe that eye witness testimony is credible. It is at least not credible for you. Would you fault others for being persuaded?

 

[ananda]

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

"Evidence" are things like an ancient middle-eastern tomb filled with burial cloths, an ancient cross with nails on it, and the word "Jesus" etched at the entrance to the tomb. A Christian might see all that and say "see, look at all this wonderful evidence for Jesus! I interpret it all to mean 'He is truly risen!'" Another, like myself, will say "You can interpret these things as evidence for your beliefs. I see this evidence and interpret them differently: some prankster might've come here in the middle ages and did all this to fool people."

"Proof" is seeing, touching, etc. Jesus, who is standing there in the middle of the tomb himself.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Some people do believe that eye witness testimony is credible. It is at least not credible for you. Would you fault others for being persuaded?

If they believe eyewitness testimony is sufficient for the extraordinary claims of their own religion, but not extraordinary claims outside of that - miracles of competing religions, alien abductions, acts of magic, the existence of fairies, etc. - I would fault them for being inconsistent.

If they believe eyewitness testimony is sufficient for all extraordinary claims, even contradictory ones, I would fault them for being foolish.

 

[cvanwey]

Firstly, I was not surprised by the thoughtless responses ignorant of the last 1000 years of these discussions.

We would expect that the fine-tuning atheist cosmologists find in the universe for life, would be a result of design rather than chance or necessity.

We would find the best explanation of objective moral values and duties to be in the existence of an all-good being.

We would expect that the nature of our solar-system and our planet to be life-permitting.

We would find a personal God would be the best explanation for man's search for meaning.

We would find that God being the best explanation for the sudden appearance of massive amounts of information in the first DNA, as opposed to necessity or chance.

For someone whom prides themselves on 'rubber stamping' others, and their committed fallacies, you sure seemed to trip all over yourself with this presented response.