What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Tree of Life]

MacBeth and King Duncan are discussing the politics of Scotland when an eccentric prophet-like figure barges into the room.

"There is a Shakespeare!" he says.

"What's a Shakespeare?" replies MacBeth.

"What's a Shakespeare?! Shakespeare is the creator of our world. He's responsible for everything that we are and see. He's the author of life. He created us and sustains our existence. We owe everything to him!" the prophet says.

MacBeth and Duncan smile at one another and look around the room.

"I don't see any Shakespeares." says Duncan. "Where is this Shakespeare?"

"He spoke to me. He sent me. I come from him and will return to him. I've come with a message!" says the prophet.

"Anyone can make such a claim. What evidence do you have for his existence. What evidence do you have that he sent you?" asks MacBeth.

"The whole world is evidence of his existence!" replies the prophet...

***

When we ask for evidence for something that's within creation we all know the kinds of things we're looking for. We're looking for tangible, physical evidence. Different claims require different sorts of evidence.

"I am your father." What evidence is required of this claim? DNA testing, photographs, common memories, etc...

"It rained this afternoon." What evidence is required here? Wet cement, video footage or pictures, personal testimony, etc...

But God is the creator. If He exists he is in an entirely different category from everything else. He alone is creator, everything else is creation. He is unique. What would evidence for the existence of God be like? It's too simplistic to ask for the sort of physical evidence that applies to claims like the two mentioned above. If God exists the whole world is, indeed, evidence of his existence. But certainly more can be said.

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

 

[prov1810]

The example seems to question the reality of the world - the brain in a vat thought-experiment. It seems to me that the Bible simply takes the existence of the world for granted, which we need to believe in order to take God's holiness (His superior mode of existing) seriously. He isn't exalted if He's the only real being.

I think that theism stands or falls on the validity of the cosmological argument.

 

[Tree of Life]

The example seems to question the reality of the world - the brain in a vat thought-experiment. It seems to me that the Bible simply takes the existence of the world for granted, which we need to believe in order to take God's holiness (His superior mode of existing) seriously. He isn't exalted if He's the only real being.

I think that theism stands or falls on the validity of the cosmological argument.

The parable is an analogy. God's created world is real. It's more real than our created worlds of fiction. But wouldn't you say that in the same way that MacBeth depends on Shakespeare that you and I depend on God?

 

[Rubiks]

I think most atheists in general have a "direct evidence or no evidence" mentality when it comes to belief in God. That isn't reasonable. Unlike a human, God has no physical body to take a photograph of. Even the times where God directly revealed himself in Bible, it was always done with God's main goal at that time in mind, such as God revealing himself to Moses in order to set the Israelites free. These experiences were almost always only given to a handful of people at a time.

 

[Rubiks]

In fact, a compelling case for a creator can be made on purely philosophical grounds alone without any sort of evidence. Consider this syllogism.

1. Everything that exists must have some explanation of its existence, whether it is self-existent or is caused by some other object [self-evident]
2. The natural world (the universe, possibly including other universes if they exist) exists [self-evident]
3. The natural word is not self-existent [reasonable to believe true]
∴ The natural world must have some explanation of its existence, which much be supernatural

P.S. just because one may not find the argument convincing does not make it invalid or unsound

 

[prov1810]

But wouldn't you say that in the same way that MacBeth depends on Shakespeare that you and I depend on God?

Yes. He sustains the moment-by-moment existence of all things.

 

[Chany]

Evidence is a fact or argument that positively asserts the existence of something. In short, what about reality would be different between a god and no god? Does any predictable evidence occur? What about facts that overcome possible contradictions between reality and a god hypothesis? Stuff along that line is evidence.

 

[Paradoxum]

"The whole world is evidence of his existence!" replies the prophet...

But the world isn't evidence for the Author... it's not even a tiny amount of evidence. Nothing about the world points to there being an Author called Shakespeare or Yahweh.

But God is the creator. If He exists he is in an entirely different category from everything else. He alone is creator, everything else is creation. He is unique. What would evidence for the existence of God be like? It's too simplistic to ask for the sort of physical evidence that applies to claims like the two mentioned above. If God exists the whole world is, indeed, evidence of his existence. But certainly more can be said.

The world doesn't point towards there being a God though. God could just as well think that the existence of his reality is evidence for a Super-God.

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

I'd take the idea of God more seriously if God created representations of himself for us to interact with. Ie: So we could literally see and hear God's avatar. If God stopped all immoral crime, and provided for all, then that would be a loving God.

Such feats could be the actions of powerful aliens, but thinking it were actually God would be reasonable.

 

[Tree of Life]

But the world isn't evidence for the Author... it's not even a tiny amount of evidence. Nothing about the world points to there being an Author called Shakespeare or Yahweh.

I do think that the collected works of Shakespeare are evidence of Shakespeare.

The world doesn't point towards there being a God though. God could just as well think that the existence of his reality is evidence for a Super-God.

If the world is God's creation then all of it is evidence of God.

I'd take the idea of God more seriously if God created representations of himself for us to interact with. Ie: So we could literally see and hear God's avatar.

The Bible says that God has done exactly this. Man was made in the image of God. Man is God's avatar, his representative. Man is to commune directly with God and then pass on God's word to God's world.

Since the fall mankind has lost some of this representation, but God has raised up prophets throughout history - living, speaking people who speak his words and represent his presence.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate prophet - the final and perfect representation of God.

Now all who are indwelt with the Spirit of Christ hold this prophetic office. Every Christian is God's representative and avatar. When you are hearing a Christian speak God's words you are hearing God. When you ask a Christian a question you are asking God. When you see a Christian you are seeing a representative of God. It's a huge responsibility for us!

If God stopped all immoral crime, and provided for all, then that would be a loving God.

The church has been working at this for a few thousand years. We've made some progress but there's still a long way to go.

 

[NamelessHero]

I started to answer but then I realized that I just don't know. No one knows what that evidence would look like and we won't know until we see that evidence.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think most atheists in general have a "direct evidence or no evidence" mentality when it comes to belief in God. That isn't reasonable. Unlike a human, God has no physical body to take a photograph of. Even the times where God directly revealed himself in Bible, it was always done with God's main goal at that time in mind, such as God revealing himself to Moses in order to set the Israelites free. These experiences were almost always only given to a handful of people at a time.

God could create a physical or semi-physical avatar of himself. Such divine avatars could interact with everyone for their entire life, preventing crime, and healing the sick.

That's what a loving God would do, if he wanted us to know him.

1. Everything that exists must have some explanation of its existence, whether it is self-existent or is caused by some other object [self-evident]

What do you mean by self-existent? If it just means, 'not the result of an external object', then I might agree.

3. The natural word is not self-existent [reasonable to believe true]

I don't agree. Why do you think this is true?

P.S. just because one may not find the argument convincing does not make it invalid or unsound

Well you still have to explain why you think the premises make sense, for belief to be reasonable.

eg:
1) All animals above two meters tall are pink.
2) Adult elephants are animals.
3) All adult elephants are above two meters tall.
Therefore: All adult elephants are pink.

Just because the conclusion follows from the premises, that doesn't make it reasonable to believe the conclusion.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I started to answer but then I realized that I just don't know. No one knows what that evidence would look like and we won't know until we see that evidence.

Here's an idea on how to go about recognizing it from the physics department of Oregon University: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.

 

[znr]

Miracles that accompanied Jesus' ministry were sufficient to draw many to God. Unfortunately too many believers believe miracles and healing no longer occur.

Having several encounters with God influenced me and allowed me to draw on these experiences during very rough times.

But where the real "proof" occurs is in how we love one another and others; that is what unbelievers are looking at. Scripture very plainly states as much.

 

[Ken-1122]

MacBeth and King Duncan are discussing the politics of Scotland when an eccentric prophet-like figure barges into the room.

"There is a Shakespeare!" he says.

"What's a Shakespeare?" replies MacBeth.

"What's a Shakespeare?! Shakespeare is the creator of our world. He's responsible for everything that we are and see. He's the author of life. He created us and sustains our existence. We owe everything to him!" the prophet says.

MacBeth and Duncan smile at one another and look around the room.

"I don't see any Shakespeares." says Duncan. "Where is this Shakespeare?"

"He spoke to me. He sent me. I come from him and will return to him. I've come with a message!" says the prophet.

"Anyone can make such a claim. What evidence do you have for his existence. What evidence do you have that he sent you?" asks MacBeth.

"The whole world is evidence of his existence!" replies the prophet...

***

When we ask for evidence for something that's within creation we all know the kinds of things we're looking for. We're looking for tangible, physical evidence. Different claims require different sorts of evidence.

"I am your father." What evidence is required of this claim? DNA testing, photographs, common memories, etc...

"It rained this afternoon." What evidence is required here? Wet cement, video footage or pictures, personal testimony, etc...

But God is the creator. If He exists he is in an entirely different category from everything else. He alone is creator, everything else is creation. He is unique. What would evidence for the existence of God be like? It's too simplistic to ask for the sort of physical evidence that applies to claims like the two mentioned above. If God exists the whole world is, indeed, evidence of his existence. But certainly more can be said.

What light does the MacBeth parable shed on the sorts of evidence we're looking for when we're looking for evidence of God's existence? What would evidence of God's existence even be like?

If an audible voice came from the sky claiming to be the Creator of the Universe; to clear up all the misunderstandings people have of him, that would be all the evidence of God anyone would ever need.

Ken

 

[znr]

Well, God did send a voice from the sky in the form of a man, but still some people rejected it. So I'm thinking that even if God bellowed from the sky some people might reject that too. Or just write it off as delusional. Not saying you would reject it, but some would.

If an audible voice came from the sky claiming to be the Creator of the Universe; to clear up all the misunderstandings people have of him, that would be all the evidence of God anyone would ever need.

Ken

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, God did send a voice from the sky in the form of a man, but still some people rejected it. So I'm thinking that even if God bellowed from the sky some people might reject that too. Or just write it off as delusional. Not saying you would reject it, but some would.

...did Jesus drop out of the sky?

 

[znr]

Not my point?

...did Jesus drop out of the sky?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not my point?

What was the point then?

 

[znr]

My point is that God did communicate with mankind in the form of Jesus, but not everyone believed. If God sent down an audible voice, and, for example, Ken heard it and recognized it as God's voice, would you also recognize it as God's voice? So my point is, God does speak to mankind, but not everyone listens. Should God yell at mankind in a booming voice? And would all people then understand? I understand Ken's question, but I'm just saying that God does speak, just not in a booming voice that all people can understand simultaneously. Actually God claims to speak in a still small voice. But back to Ken's question, incidentally, God will be speaking in a booming voice one day. The question is, will it be too late? Just something to ponder.

What was the point then?

 

[Jesse2014]

My point is that God did communicate with mankind in the form of Jesus, but not everyone believed. If God sent down an audible voice, and, for example, Ken heard it and recognized it as God's voice, would you also recognize it as God's voice? So my point is, God does speak to mankind, but not everyone listens. Should God yell at mankind in a booming voice? And would all people then understand? I understand Ken's question, but I'm just saying that God does speak, just not in a booming voice that all people can understand simultaneously. Actually God claims to speak in a still small voice. But back to Ken's question, incidentally, God will be speaking in a booming voice one day. The question is, will it be too late? Just something to ponder.

Good question.