What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[gaara4158]

In another words...

'God exists because I don't understand things."

Got it

Yeah, avoid this guy, he’s a hard-headed creationist who will PM you the watch argument until the cows come home.

 

[xianghua]

In another words...

'God exists because I don't understand things."

Got it

no. he exist because a robot need design. but you are welcome to believe otherwise.

 

[Silmarien]

Are you saying that belief is a choice?

No, I'm saying that people ought to take responsibility for their own intellectual development and actually think about things instead of declaring that if God existed, he would make them believe. Maybe God actually wants you to use your mind and engage with life, after all.

I do think that there's a strong volitional aspect to belief, though.

Fair enough, but that’s kind of the point. We’ve discussed the nature of belief before and I still hold that belief is not an act of volition. We can make choices that ultimately influence our beliefs, but we can’t directly choose them. To base salvation on something that can’t easily be “corrected” seems unjust.
In other words, I can either pursue truth in the only way I know how, in which case it is unlikely I will ever conclude that God exists, or I can pursue the belief that God exists and if I am successful, I will have no way of distinguishing my convictions from self-deceit because I would have had to employ the same methods to get there. I don’t know why a god who wanted me to believe would place me in such a dilemma.

I think you're assuming that the main point is correct belief, not something like correct attitude towards life. That's the problem I have with this line of thought--it seems like a convenient way to write off one of the biggest questions out there, and not really a logically valid way. Maybe God does want us to struggle with these sorts of questions--there could very easily be a purpose behind divine hiddenness. So deciding out of hand that God wouldn't want xyz, therefore God doesn't exist strikes me as silly.

If God isn’t detectable the way literally anything else in the universe is, what am I to conclude other than he’s not here? Suppose I did untangle the dozen or so philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity. Who is the philosopher’s god? Is it Yahweh? Allah? Spinoza’s? Even if I didn’t find faults in the standard theistic arguments, I don’t see a clear line pointing from “God exists” to “Entry to Heaven is based on xyz so I’d better get my act together.”

But that's the thing. God is not detectable the way literally anything else in the universe is, because God is not something that is inside the universe. We're confusing apples and oranges when we approach theism in this fashion, so if your conclusion is that God is not here in the way that trees and rocks and rivers are here, that's not a very controversial conclusion.

Getting from the God of the Philosophers to a particular religion is a different question, of course. I think once we're looking at revelation, empirical questions can play a role--religions do make historical claims that you can look into, though like the OP, I'm wondering what sort of evidence people would accept here. (Look at something like the Shroud of Turin. Would people reconsider things if it was ever shown to be authentic, or would they vehemently refuse to even take it into account?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The OT is full of miracles. How about parting the Red Sea in front of an audience of skeptics?

...will those skeptics be driving horse drawn chariots by chance?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because according to many Christians, Jesus would have gladly died on the cross to save only one person - me.

Besides that, if God would part the Red Sea TODAY in front of prepared audience of skeptics with video cameras and other instrumentation then the miracle would be persuasive for today's generation and all our descendants. Granted there are people who deny the moon landing, so I'm sure there would be a few that would deny the Red Sea miracle, but most sensible people would accept the historical record. Billions would be saved who might otherwise be lost.

Actually, if we look at the epistemic precedents in the book of Exodus, your claim that skeptics today would just all bow down to God if He'd "just do something again like parting the Red Sea" ends up falling apart. I mean, how many plagues does God have to send to make a skeptic "believe"?
[Strange. My question here sounds like a parody of that famous Tootsie-Pop commercial with the boy and the Owl.]

So, how many plagues does it take? The World may never know......

 

[gaara4158]

I think you're assuming that the main point is correct belief, not something like correct attitude towards life. That's the problem I have with this line of thought--it seems like a convenient way to write off one of the biggest questions out there, and not really a logically valid way. Maybe God does want us to struggle with these sorts of questions--there could very easily be a purpose behind divine hiddenness. So deciding out of hand that God wouldn't want xyz, therefore God doesn't exist strikes me as silly.

It’s not supposed to get us to “therefore God doesn’t exist,” rather, it’s a criticism of God’s decision to become utterly hidden and then to base salvation on belief in his existence. You can suppose that God may still exist and he values people who make an effort to wrestle with unanswerable questions, but it’s far from silly to also consider the more cynical explanation that there simply is no god and the only reason the concept still exists is because it’s based in something unfalsifiable and belief is motivated by the ultimate carrot and stick. I do think it’s good to struggle with difficult philosophical questions and coming at them with the right attitude is paramount, and I don’t think having the right attitude precludes now having the goal of approaching true belief.

But that's the thing. God is not detectable the way literally anything else in the universe is, because God is not something that is inside the universe. We're confusing apples and oranges when we approach theism in this fashion, so if your conclusion is that God is not here in the way that trees and rocks and rivers are here, that's not a very controversial conclusion.

Getting from the God of the Philosophers to a particular religion is a different question, of course. I think once we're looking at revelation, empirical questions can play a role--religions do make historical claims that you can look into, though like the OP, I'm wondering what sort of evidence people would accept here. (Look at something like the Shroud of Turin. Would people reconsider things if it was ever shown to be authentic, or would they vehemently refuse to even take it into account?)

I don’t know about that not being controversial. There are plenty of Biblical literalists (many of whom I grew up with) who would insist that God really does manifest in the universe. Ignoring them, let’s consider your example. If the shroud of Turin were shown to be authentic, it should of course be taken into account. It would confirm that Jesus was at one time wrapped up in burial cloths and then was later removed. It’s consistent with the claim that he removed himself, but not sufficient to confirm it. We would need many, many more pieces of the puzzle to get all the way to Jesus died, was resurrected, and became God and in doing so paid our debt for original sin.

 

[Silmarien]

It’s not supposed to get us to “therefore God doesn’t exist,” rather, it’s a criticism of God’s decision to become utterly hidden and then to base salvation on belief in his existence. You can suppose that God may still exist and he values people who make an effort to wrestle with unanswerable questions, but it’s far from silly to also consider the more cynical explanation that there simply is no god and the only reason the concept still exists is because it’s based in something unfalsifiable and belief is motivated by the ultimate carrot and stick. I do think it’s good to struggle with difficult philosophical questions and coming at them with the right attitude is paramount, and I don’t think having the right attitude precludes now having the goal of approaching true belief.

There are non-religious theists, inclusivists, universalists, and so forth and so on. I see no necessary link between theism and salvation being based on belief, though even assuming that it is, I don't think divine hiddenness is a very good argument. We're talking about what is arguably the defining concept of human history--nobody who could be taking part in this debate is ignorant of it. You don't need to go far to find someone who'll claim to have experienced a miracle. I'm disinclined to believe those claims myself, since I've got some strong rationalistic leanings, but I can't claim to be unaware of them, and if God is choosing to communicate indirectly, I can ignore it but I can't then rage and insist that he isn't doing his job properly.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be cynical and decide that God doesn't exist. But if that's the route you go and then salvation is based on belief, you should take responsibility for your beliefs instead of blaming God for not correcting them. Whenever I see people say this, it actually makes me more comfortable with the idea that unbelief is a sin, because what I see is the sort of intellectual pride that digs in deeper and deeper, eats into someone more and more until they're basically in theological rebellion against something they don't even believe in. That's not every atheist, of course, but when it happens, it isn't pretty.

I don’t know about that not being controversial. There are plenty of Biblical literalists (many of whom I grew up with) who would insist that God really does manifest in the universe.

Well, there's a difference between existing in the universe and manifesting in the universe. It's hard to say what would even count as empirical evidence of God's manifestation within the universe, though--you could even say that the indeterminacy of quantum physics is where we see God actively maintaining and guiding Creation, but most people aren't going to accept this as actual evidence. They'll just say that there has to be a real explanation, so even if God did speak and his voice could be picked up on sonar, would you accept it as evidence or would you argue that it's an unexplained natural phenomenon instead?

Ignoring them, let’s consider your example. If the shroud of Turin were shown to be authentic, it should of course be taken into account. It would confirm that Jesus was at one time wrapped up in burial cloths and then was later removed. It’s consistent with the claim that he removed himself, but not sufficient to confirm it. We would need many, many more pieces of the puzzle to get all the way to Jesus died, was resurrected, and became God and in doing so paid our debt for original sin.

No, but if it were authentic, that would open the door to potential empirical testing that could be used to confirm aspects of the story. The fun part of the Shroud of Turin is the negative image and the theories about how it got there. I have no idea how you could test for Resurrection energy and the tests people have concocted for it are wild, but that's something that if authentic, could at least theoretically provide empirical evidence one day.

That's the thing with Christian claims. There is at least the possibility of eventually discovering that some weird unexplainable phenomenon happened 2000 years ago. Not a strong possibility, but still non-zero, and I wonder how people would react if this ever happened. Badly, I suspect.

 

[Moral Orel]

I mean, how many plagues does God have to send to make a skeptic "believe"?

Why do you think Pharaoh didn't believe in the existence of Yahweh?

 

[bhsmte]

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?

For me, the evidence should be the same, to determine if anything exists. Objective and independently verifiable.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think it's unreasonable to be cynical and decide that God doesn't exist. But if that's the route you go and then salvation is based on belief, you should take responsibility for your beliefs instead of blaming God for not correcting them. Whenever I see people say this, it actually makes me more comfortable with the idea that unbelief is a sin, because what I see is the sort of intellectual pride that digs in deeper and deeper, eats into someone more and more until they're basically in theological rebellion against something they don't even believe in. That's not every atheist, of course, but when it happens, it isn't pretty.

I am perfectly comfortable owning the reasoning behind my disbelief in God, and if it turned out that salvation was based on belief I wouldn’t regret my end of things. I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t think I had made a mistake. I would have to conclude that God doesn’t value reasonable people who are skeptical of claims that aren’t empirically or logically demonstrated. He’s free to be like that, but let’s not act like I’m choosing not to be saved. The terms are his, not mine.
Maybe this attitude is the intellectual rebellion you’re describing. I think it’s a little silly to say I’m rebelling because I refuse to let the off-chance that some inaccessible being rewards belief - or even exists - influence my decision making.

Well, there's a difference between existing in the universe and manifesting in the universe. It's hard to say what would even count as empirical evidence of God's manifestation within the universe, though--you could even say that the indeterminacy of quantum physics is where we see God actively maintaining and guiding Creation, but most people aren't going to accept this as actual evidence. They'll just say that there has to be a real explanation, so even if God did speak and his voice could be picked up on sonar, would you accept it as evidence or would you argue that it's an unexplained natural phenomenon instead?

This gets us into the realm of what would constitute a supernatural occurrence as opposed to a natural one. I seem to remember you agreeing with me that anything manifesting in the universe in any detectable way would automatically be considered a part of the natural world, even if we couldn't identify its origin, so to call anything we could actually detect "supernatural" would be contradictory. This is a real problem for those who want evidence for a supernatural god. I don't even know what it would mean to be supernatural based on this definition of nature.
However, if we're willing to take the problem with supernatural things in stride, I think if we could detect a being like Dr. Manhattan calling himself God we could pretty much wrap up the case that God really does exist. We'd have found a being demonstrating all the abilities God is said to have, and he'd be identifying as such. We might still not be able to tell the difference between him being the One True God or a deceptive hyper-advanced alien wizard, but that's the case for everything we detect anyway. It would at the very least put us strides ahead of where we are now, evidence-wise.

No, but if it were authentic, that would open the door to potential empirical testing that could be used to confirm aspects of the story. The fun part of the Shroud of Turin is the negative image and the theories about how it got there. I have no idea how you could test for Resurrection energy and the tests people have concocted for it are wild, but that's something that if authentic, could at least theoretically provide empirical evidence one day.

That's the thing with Christian claims. There is at least the possibility of eventually discovering that some weird unexplainable phenomenon happened 2000 years ago. Not a strong possibility, but still non-zero, and I wonder how people would react if this ever happened. Badly, I suspect.

Sure, but again, even if it were shown to be due to resurrection, all it would prove is a resurrection. That's an important piece of the puzzle and it would definitely get the attention of some staunch atheists, but it doesn't get us to God just yet. And if you're saying it's unexplainable, aren't you admitting it can't ever get us there? Because God would surely be the explanation, wouldn't he?

 

[cvanwey]

Yeah, avoid this guy, he’s a hard-headed creationist who will PM you the watch argument until the cows come home.

I can't believe, in this day and age, that people will still use such a debunked argument?.? Oh well, go figure...

 

[cloudyday2]

I was reading post #127 @Silmarien and I began to wonder why the knee-jerk evidence for God is always a miracle that violates natural laws.

Imagine I am fishing and the lake suddenly parts to reveal dry land. That is probably a miracle just like the parting of the Red Sea, but it doesn't serve any obvious purpose. In the Red Sea miracle the Hebrews needed to escape the Egyptian army. When the Red Sea parted it was obvious who parted it and why. On the other hand if I'm fishing and the lake suddenly parts I have no idea who parted it or why.

And here is another example. Imagine that God is a super-advanced extraterrestrial being who created Adam and Eve and hears and sometimes answers our prayers (through some undiscovered natural mechanism). Imagine miracles are impossible yet still this God exists. His advanced capabilities seem paranormal, but they are actually natural.

So it seems that the evidence for God would be similar to the evidence for the existence of a particular human.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, if we look at the epistemic precedents in the book of Exodus, your claim that skeptics today would just all bow down to God if He'd "just do something again like parting the Red Sea" ends up falling apart. I mean, how many plagues does God have to send to make a skeptic "believe"?
[Strange. My question here sounds like a parody of that famous Tootsie-Pop commercial with the boy and the Owl.]

So, how many plagues does it take? The World may never know......

It seems like you might have missed the gist of what he was saying. He emphasized 'TODAY'. So yes, if such an event happened today, at least it would be recorded in a way, which could actually be analyzed later, (even 1,000 years later). As it stands, all we have is an ancient claimed and asserted story, written only from antiquity. How do we even know such a story is factual? Because the Bible says so? The same book which claims other events in claimed history, in which when we have means to test as such, some appear to possibly be lacking in reality?

Furthermore, I don't think he insinuated doubters would immediately 'bow down.' Many scoffers would and could still scoff. But at least we would have reason to attempt verifying a claimed event....

 

[Silmarien]

I am perfectly comfortable owning the reasoning behind my disbelief in God, and if it turned out that salvation was based on belief I wouldn’t regret my end of things. I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t think I had made a mistake. I would have to conclude that God doesn’t value reasonable people who are skeptical of claims that aren’t empirically or logically demonstrated. He’s free to be like that, but let’s not act like I’m choosing not to be saved. The terms are his, not mine.
Maybe this attitude is the intellectual rebellion you’re describing. I think it’s a little silly to say I’m rebelling because I refuse to let the off-chance that some inaccessible being rewards belief - or even exists - influence my decision making.

I don't know if your attitude is intellectual rebellion. It's a lot of the corollaries to disbelief that I'd consider rebellion--the self-complacent smugness with which plenty of atheists approach the subject these days. For example, there's a distinct lack of humility in a lot of the responses in this thread, and I think that's telling.

There's a strong tendency these days to hide intellectual pride under the cover of intellectual honesty, and some of the underlying issues there are actually pretty ugly. There are people around here who wander around making sport of Creationists, and there's a touch of performance art to it. I think there's a deep need there to feel intellectually superior (one I share, honestly, which is why I avoid arguments with both Creationists and New Atheists). As soon as someone's atheism gets tied into that sense of superiority, things take a turn for the worse and we move into herd mentality and ultimately rebellion.

Religious people are just as bad when it comes to herd mentality and superiority complexes, of course. But if they're growing in the right direction, it's something they ought to realize is an issue sooner of later. It's not the sort of thing that plays much of a role in modern atheistic notions of morality, though, and therein lies one potential danger. Not the only one, but a big one. (The biggest issue is just declaring your nonbelief reasonable and not being open to the possibility that your motivations are not as pure as you might like to think--from a universalist perspective, that's the sort of active resistance to correction that might mean someone eternally choosing not to be saved.)

I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, and honestly they're likely to be unpopular to a lot of people on both sides of the debate, lol.

This gets us into the realm of what would constitute a supernatural occurrence as opposed to a natural one. I seem to remember you agreeing with me that anything manifesting in the universe in any detectable way would automatically be considered a part of the natural world, even if we couldn't identify its origin, so to call anything we could actually detect "supernatural" would be contradictory. This is a real problem for those who want evidence for a supernatural god. I don't even know what it would mean to be supernatural based on this definition of nature.
However, if we're willing to take the problem with supernatural things in stride, I think if we could detect a being like Dr. Manhattan calling himself God we could pretty much wrap up the case that God really does exist. We'd have found a being demonstrating all the abilities God is said to have, and he'd be identifying as such. We might still not be able to tell the difference between him being the One True God or a deceptive hyper-advanced alien wizard, but that's the case for everything we detect anyway. It would at the very least put us strides ahead of where we are now, evidence-wise.

But Dr. Manhattan doesn't have all the abilities God is said to have. He isn't a necessary being--i.e., he could have failed to exist. Detecting that such a creature existed would have absolutely no effect upon the question of theism and we would be in exactly the same place that we are now evidence-wise.

But yes, I do agree that the distinction between natural and supernatural is meaningless and that there's no way to determine whether something detected in the natural world is actually supernatural.

Sure, but again, even if it were shown to be due to resurrection, all it would prove is a resurrection. That's an important piece of the puzzle and it would definitely get the attention of some staunch atheists, but it doesn't get us to God just yet. And if you're saying it's unexplainable, aren't you admitting it can't ever get us there? Because God would surely be the explanation, wouldn't he?

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't trying to get from the Shroud of Turin to God. I think trying to demonstrate theism empirically is a joke. My second paragraph wasn't related to the Shroud of Turin at all--I was thinking that if something like the Incarnation happened, we're dealing with the sort of singularity which could at least in theory have left empirical traces. If we one day found out that the laws of physics basically just broke down 2000 years ago, then we'd have some really interesting empirical evidence for Christianity. So I think these are valid empirical demands that people could make, whereas picking up God's voice on sonar is not.

I was reading post #127 @Silmarien and I began to wonder why the knee-jerk evidence for God is always a miracle that violates natural laws.

Oh, I was just discussing empirical evidence in general and what it might look like. I agree with your assessment of miracles as evidence, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do you think Pharaoh didn't believe in the existence of Yahweh?

Maybe it had something to do with the Egyptian idea that Pharaoh could be deemed to be the aperture of divine power upon earth. I imagine that what we might surmise from the Exodus story, Pharoah thought he was divine in some capacity and he may have had the tendency to reject any competition that could be presented by some red-neck, low-life Hebrew who told him to make room for another, non-Egyptian divine power.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems like you might have missed the gist of what he was saying. He emphasized 'TODAY'. So yes, if such an event happened today, at least it would be recorded in a way, which could actually be analyzed later, (even 1,000 years later). As it stands, all we have is an ancient claimed and asserted story, written only from antiquity. How do we even know such a story is factual? Because the Bible says so? The same book which claims other events in claimed history, in which when we have means to test as such, some appear to possibly be lacking in reality?

Furthermore, I don't think he insinuated doubters would immediately 'bow down.' Many scoffers would and could still scoff. But at least we would have reason to attempt verifying a claimed event....

No, I didn't miss his 'gist.' But I do think you're missing mine................

What we need to realize is the possibility that the God of the Bible isn't a "Nice" God. If He were to actually show up today as He did in times past, it might be the last time many of us will ever be asking for proof.....and it wouldn't be because we'd finally feel satisfied with the evidence.

Do you catch the gist of what I'm getting at?

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe it had something to do with the Egyptian idea that Pharaoh could be deemed to be the aperture of divine power upon earth. I imagine that what we might surmise from the Exodus story, Pharoah thought he was divine in some capacity and he may have had the tendency to reject any competition that could be presented by some red-neck, low-life Hebrew who told him to make room for another, non-Egyptian divine power.

Clearly he "rejected" Moses' God, but that doesn't mean he didn't believe Yahweh existed. Just that he thought he was no big deal. Seems to me like all these ancient cultures talk about their contemporaries as if all the gods are real. Even the Bible does it. Just because Pharaoh didn't agree that Yahweh was the supreme creator of everything, doesn't mean that he didn't believe Yahweh exists.

 

[cloudyday2]

What we need to realize is the possibility that the God of the Bible isn't a "Nice" God. If He were to actually show up today as He did in times past, it might be the last time many of us will ever be asking for proof.....and it wouldn't be because we'd finally feel satisfied with the evidence.

I agree that it is good to be open to various possibilities.

Imagine we are searching for Bigfoot. Would we sit around and say "Bigfoot SHOULD be an omniverous ape with males slightly larger than females ... blah blah blah". No, we need to evaluate all the sightings of Bigfoot, and MOST IMPORTANTLY we need to spend time in the forests looking for more evidence. If we make the effort to actually evaluate the sightings of Bigfoot it quickly becomes apparent that there are paranormal aspects. If these sightings are accurate then we need to consider other explanations for Bigfoot such as extraterrestrials or demons.

It's the same with the search for God. We need to evaluate all the reported experiences of God from religious texts, modern history, trusted friends. Then we need to go out into the spiritual forest and search for ourselves. We should only require that God be the source of these reported experiences. Maybe God is an ancient astronaut. Maybe God is the omni-this-and-that of Christian theology, maybe God is a raging tyrant. We need to keep an open mind. (I personally think God has a deep love for all of us, but as you pointed-out that isn't the way most ancient Hebrews imagined God. The ancient Hebrews seemed to emphasize fear of God and law of God in addition to love of God.)

 

[gaara4158]

I don't know if your attitude is intellectual rebellion. It's a lot of the corollaries to disbelief that I'd consider rebellion--the self-complacent smugness with which plenty of atheists approach the subject these days. For example, there's a distinct lack of humility in a lot of the responses in this thread, and I think that's telling.

There's a strong tendency these days to hide intellectual pride under the cover of intellectual honesty, and some of the underlying issues there are actually pretty ugly. There are people around here who wander around making sport of Creationists, and there's a touch of performance art to it. I think there's a deep need there to feel intellectually superior (one I share, honestly, which is why I avoid arguments with both Creationists and New Atheists). As soon as someone's atheism gets tied into that sense of superiority, things take a turn for the worse and we move into herd mentality and ultimately rebellion.

Religious people are just as bad when it comes to herd mentality and superiority complexes, of course. But if they're growing in the right direction, it's something they ought to realize is an issue sooner of later. It's not the sort of thing that plays much of a role in modern atheistic notions of morality, though, and therein lies one potential danger. Not the only one, but a big one. (The biggest issue is just declaring your nonbelief reasonable and not being open to the possibility that your motivations are not as pure as you might like to think--from a universalist perspective, that's the sort of active resistance to correction that might mean someone eternally choosing not to be saved.)

I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, and honestly they're likely to be unpopular to a lot of people on both sides of the debate, lol.

I see where you're going with this concerning attitudes, and to an extent I think you're right. To resist opposing views as though they threaten your very flesh and bone is an innate human tendency, so it's unsurprising to see it manifesting on both sides here through smugness and superiority complexes. I disagree that atheists don't have any moral reason to rise above this kind of mentality and I disagree that I've merely declared my position reasonable without really being open to other options.

Anyone with a moral system based on well-being can recognize the benefits of humility and open-mindedness. My dismissal of the question of God's existence isn't a first move, it's a reaction to the typical theist's insistence that anything we could ask for as evidence wouldn't really point to God's existence. They're right, as long as they're imbuing God with unfalsifiable characteristics. When that's the case, asking me to believe is asking me to abandon a logic and evidence-based epistemology in favor of an epistemology that isn't, which - as far as I can tell - far more easily leads to nonsensical, false beliefs than the former. Should I willfully suspend my epistemic standards for no other reason than someone thinks I'm too satisfied with them? The fact that I don't think so doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. If that's not good enough for God then he and I are seriously incompatible. If I'm choosing not to be saved, it's only by implicitly rejecting a hypothetical god that demands I suspend reason for hypothetical rewards when I decide to hang my hat in a very real world that reinforces empiricism with tangible rewards.

I will agree that this line of reasoning can be considered a form of rebellion, but it's not against God directly, or even the concept of a god. It's a rebellion against cultural norms that exempt certain convictions from intellectual critique, allowing public policy to be dictated by people's beliefs that are ultimately founded on neither logic nor evidence. I find this entirely too dangerous and historically damaging to go along with it.

But Dr. Manhattan doesn't have all the abilities God is said to have. He isn't a necessary being--i.e., he could have failed to exist. Detecting that such a creature existed would have absolutely no effect upon the question of theism and we would be in exactly the same place that we are now evidence-wise.

But yes, I do agree that the distinction between natural and supernatural is meaningless and that there's no way to determine whether something detected in the natural world is actually supernatural.

I'm still not sure that any being is necessary, but your point still stands because even if God, the Necessary Being with all the traits you please, chose to manifest as a Dr. Manhattan-esque figure we still couldn't really verify those traits. I wouldn't have a problem calling such a being a god anyway, since not all gods are necessary (any polytheist could tell you that), but you seem to be talking about the God of the Philosophers here. So you're right, hence my above paragraphs.

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't trying to get from the Shroud of Turin to God. I think trying to demonstrate theism empirically is a joke. My second paragraph wasn't related to the Shroud of Turin at all--I was thinking that if something like the Incarnation happened, we're dealing with the sort of singularity which could at least in theory have left empirical traces. If we one day found out that the laws of physics basically just broke down 2000 years ago, then we'd have some really interesting empirical evidence for Christianity. So I think these are valid empirical demands that people could make, whereas picking up God's voice on sonar is not.

The confusion is probably my fault, honestly. I tend to get tunnel vision when i spend more than a few minutes typing out a response. Yes, evidence for genuine miracles as described in Christian tradition do hypothetically lend themselves to empirical verification as opposed to God's existence which doesn't. So here's a question. If all the miracles of Christianity were somehow empirically confirmed, would that be enough to say that Christianity is demonstrated? Or is Christianity, being fundamentally theistic in nature and theism is indemonstrable, inherently indemonstrable as well?

 

[cvanwey]

No, I didn't miss his 'gist.' But I do think you're missing mine................

What we need to realize is the possibility that the God of the Bible isn't a "Nice" God. If He were to actually show up today as He did in times past, it might be the last time many of us will ever be asking for proof.....and it wouldn't be because we'd finally feel satisfied with the evidence.

Do you catch the gist of what I'm getting at?

Before I even attempt to respond to such assertions made, lets instead first conclude the final resolve, etc, of the other poster's 'gist'; by starting with a simple question....

If the one true God was known to humans, in a way in which was undeniable, irrefutable, incontestable, like many other assertions very few humans on this planet reject, do you actually think the term 'atheist' would even be a 'thing'???

Most likely not. Yes, we might be still be dealing with a very small minority group/population, like the 'Flat Earthers' and the like, but I think you know what I'm driving at...

It seems to boil down to two key components...

1. 'Knowledge' of existence
2. Deciding whether or not to comply with this 'knowledge'.

Everyone would 'know' that not only God exists, but WHICH God is the REAL God. This would fulfill the first step. Step 2 would be a whole other ball of wax.

We currently have millions/billions who earnestly either doubt, or flat out reject the claims for the existence of any asserted God. And yet, all we are left with to confirm such assertions are anecdotal ancient stories from antiquity (i.e.) the Bible or other claimed holy texts, and also daily unconfirmed and unsubstantiated anecdotal claims of today. Or better yet, philosophical arguments...

So again, going back to a previous point I made, in which you either glossed directly over, or other, I will ask again...

If you are asserting that such stories told are 'fact', (i.e.) the parting of the sea by god, but in the very same book, asserted stories are also told, which are falsifiable, and in fact appear possibly false, WHY still lend such credence to the unfalsifiable claimed events? Because remember, the Bible asserts it's ALL true, NOT just the ones you decide to hand select...

So instead of asserting that 'the next time God comes, it will be to invoke His final wrath', lets first explore if the assertions made about this very God actually happened to begin with...