What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[bhsmte]

I love it when atheists proclaim themselves immune to the human condition, as if they've possessed Buddha-like equanimity since birth. Yeah, sure.

Who said atheists were immune from the human condition? Please show me the post.

What gets me, is you can tell atheists, how they really feel. Yea, sure.

 

[Ken-1122]

We are all responsible for what we know. Our consciences tell us that our sins are destructive of our own peace of mind and our relationships with others. And because we did not create ourselves, we are damaging the life given to us by another.

You know; our conscience tells us a lot of things; but what it does not tell us is that proof of God would look like what christians claim God provided as evidence of his existence. A voice coming from the sky could.

Ken

 

[prov1810]

Who said atheists were immune from the human condition? Please show me the post.

What gets me, is you can tell atheists, how they really feel. Yea, sure.

It may be a fact to you, but not to others.

I was assuming that everyone has a conscience. Except for sociopaths, and I'm not accusing anyone here of that.

 

[prov1810]

You know; our conscience tells us a lot of things; but what it does not tell us is that proof of God would look like what christians claim God provided as evidence of his existence. A voice coming from the sky could.

Ken

A voice coming form the sky would be interpreted in many different ways. Lots of people would reject a supernatural explanation for it. And inasmuch as that voice said things that contradicted the religions that people have, it would be rejected by many religious people.

 

[bhsmte]

I was assuming that everyone has a conscience. Except for sociopaths, and I'm not accusing anyone here of that.

This is what you said, show us where an atheist proclaimed themselves immune from the human condition.

Originally Posted by prov1810

I love it when atheists proclaim themselves immune to the human condition, as if they've possessed Buddha-like equanimity since birth. Yeah, sure.
​

 

[prov1810]

This is what you said, show us where an atheist proclaimed themselves immune from the human condition.

Originally Posted by prov1810

I love it when atheists proclaim themselves immune to the human condition, as if they've possessed Buddha-like equanimity since birth. Yeah, sure.
​

When I said...

Sometimes, we stress ourselves out and we test the patience of other people. No, that's not a supernatural insight. That's just an extremely obvious fact.

you replied...

It may be a fact to you, but not to others.

 

[Ken-1122]

A voice coming form the sky would be interpreted in many different ways. Lots of people would reject a supernatural explanation for it. And inasmuch as that voice said things that contradicted the religions that people have, it would be rejected by many religious people.

I agree! I am sure if the voice comming from the sky was a God Christians didn't believe in; they would still be reluctant to burn their bibles and bow to this God. But the question was; what would convince atheists; not what would convince theists they were wrong. I gave an example of what would convince me. I am not suggesting there is one thing that would work for 100% of the population, just what would convince me as an atheist.

Ken

 

[poolerboy0077]

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.

I've never come across an atheist who only will accept "direct" evidence. You're erecting a straw man, I'm afraid.

 

[Paradoxum]

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

Perhaps, but the characters in the books don't have a collection of books by Shakespeare.

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

No it isn't. I could dig a small hole in mud. But that wouldn't be good evidence that I exist. Someone else or an animal could have dug it, or it could have occurred naturally.

The Bible says that God has done exactly this.

No he hasn't. I'm saying that God shows himself as a separate being from human minds.

I assumed you would know what I would mean by an avatar.

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.

That isn't what I asked for though. The avatar should basically be God, in a way that shows he is different from everything else (including humans), and every word and action they take should be that of God. Unless you think rape is okay, humans aren't an avatar of God. The avatars should be absolutely morally perfect.

That is the evidence I am asking for.

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.

I've never met Jesus... I don't even know if he is real. If God were real he could show himself as an avatar to us all, constantly.

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!

It's irrelevant what you think Christian are... you asked what evidence I wanted. I want a perfect non-human avatar of God... something that it is almost obviously God. You asked what I wanted as evidence, and that's what I want.

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.

If Christians aren't always perfect, then they aren't an avatar in the sense I mean.

When I say avatar I meant that the representation almost IS the being. Ie: anything the avatar did would be the action of God, and thus should always be absolutely perfect. The evidence I'd want is a non-human, semi-physical, purely perfect, avatar of God.

 

[jax5434]

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 think it would look a whole lot like the evidence we have.

Posters on here seem to forget or not understand that our (Christian) faith is not based on any philosophical speculations. Our faith is founded and based on our belief that a specific event happened in history. If that event did not happen then our faith is false. That event, the resurrection is as well attested to as almost all generally accepted evidence for the existence of any ancient event. If you choose to reject the resurrection a real event in history you also have to reject Homer, Plato, Aalexander the great ect.

Some of you no doubt are chomping at the bit waiting to point out that most (not all) of our records were written by people who followed Him. And thats true, but that is also true of Homer, Plato, Alexander the great ect. so that really doesn't help your argument.

Now some are going to say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but that is simply not true. Extraordinary claims only need to show themselves to be more likely than any other possible explanation.

So what then is more likely?

That a group of mostly illiterate fisherman living in the backwater of the Roman Empire would invent a completely new form literature ( historical fiction) and then write so convincingly that after a lifetime of persecution and suffering, with no personal gain they willing to die for what they knew to be a lie? And that for 2000 years other people were deceived into believing it and suffering and dying for it.

Or that they simply wrote accounts of a real historical event?

The way to disprove Christianity is really very simple. Find the body. As Paul said if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain. Unless and until that happens it seems most likely that God has written evidence of himself into recorded history.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ken-1122]

Some of you no doubt are chomping at the bit waiting to point out that most (not all) of our records were written by people who followed Him. And thats true, but that is also true of Homer, Plato, Alexander the great ect. so that really doesn't help your argument.

Did those who wrote of Homer, Plato, and Alexander the great claim they consistently performed acts outside the laws of nature? I wouldn’t doubt if there was some exaggeration included of the accounts of these men, so would it surprise you if we believed much of the accounts of Jesus were exaggerated? And how do you know your account of Jesus is the correct one?
As you know; not everyone who wrote of Jesus claimed him to be the son of God. True if you read the writings of Jesus that eventually became the Holy Bible, according to those men Jesus claimed to be the son of God, but if you read the writings of those who wrote the books that eventually became the Gnostic gospels, or the Holy Koran; according to those books Jesus never even made such claims.

And what about the accuracy of these writings? The bible records much of what Jesus said, but the Gospels weren’t written until decades after Christ. So how did what he said on the Mount of Olives or on the shore of Galilee get preserved long enough for someone to eventually write it down? Wouldn’t it be like trying to find someone alive today who heard Winston Churchill’s speeches and writing down what they recalled?

And who eaves dropped on the private conversation Jesus had with the man who came to him in the middle of the night? Who witnessed the agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemany? His disciples were asleep! So who heard his prayer? And how was that information preserved until some scribe wrote it down half a century later?

Now obviously you have your reasons for believing the way you believe; and that’s okay I ain’t trying to take that away from you; but it shouldn’t surprise you if people like me have our doubts.

Ken

 

[jax5434]

Now obviously you have your reasons for believing the way you believe; and that’s okay I ain’t trying to take that away from you; but it shouldn’t surprise you if people like me have our doubts

The question was what sort of evidence would we expect of God? My position is that God has left in the historical record precisely the kind of evidence we should look for. Especially in the light of his desire for faith. Even though most of the objections you make have been resolved for centuries, it is certainly your prerogative to reject it. But evidence rejected is not the same as evidence unseen.

God Bless
Jax

 

[quatona]

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?

Yes, in most concepts God is defined in a way that there can´t be any evidence for God´s existence.
That´s very unfortunate - since that means that there can be exactly as much evidence for God´s existence as there is for a non-existent entity.

 

[Colter]

Proof? Yes, we are all little finite Gods, children of God, the first source and center, the Eternal, Infinite I AM. Having an opinion about bad ideas is a transcendent reality.

Show me a God you don't believe in, I probably don't believe in that God either.

I think that what atheist are saying is that, the inconsistent and sometimes outrageous God that they have been presented with by the religions that we are born into, is more than a little underwhelming.

But consider this from the UB:

"If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts."

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

 

[Tree of Life]

If MacBeth or anyone else in Shakespeare's world is to know of Shakespeare's existence, it will only be because Shakespeare has intentionally revealed himself. It would be impossible for MacBeth to discover Shakespeare or stumble upon him apart from the will and design of the author. Shakespeare would have to write himself into the story.

Likewise, if God exists, God can in no way be "discovered" like facts within creation. We can discover a new species because it's written into creation waiting to be discovered. It's available for discovery. God can only be known by man through revelation - if God chooses to make his presence known. Without revelation no one can know of God's presence, even though it would be the most fundamental fact of the universe.

 

[prov1810]

God can only be known by man through revelation - if God chooses to make his presence known. Without revelation no one can know of God's presence, even though it would be the most fundamental fact of the universe.

How do you interpret the first chapter of Romans? v20: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

It requires no faith to believe in a creator, only logic. The physical universe began a finite time ago because an infinite causal chain is absurd. The cause must have been nonphysical and atemporal, or there would be another cause behind it. The universe did not have a blind mechanistic physical cause, so it was intended by some sort of intelligence. It is logically necessary to believe in this powerful, transcendent, intelligent Being.

 

[Chany]

How do you interpret the first chapter of Romans? v20: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

It requires no faith to believe in a creator, only logic. The physical universe began a finite time ago because an infinite causal chain is absurd. The cause must have been nonphysical and atemporal, or there would be another cause behind it. The universe did not have a blind mechanistic physical cause, so it was intended by some sort of intelligence. It is logically necessary to believe in this powerful, transcendent, intelligent Being.

First, we already addressed a variant of this argument earlier in the thread.

Second, we already addressed this argument a thousand times on this site.

Third, no, it has not been proven that the universe did not always exist. We can trace the timeline back to the origins of the Big Bang, but we currently cannot go any further; quantum mechanics starts to take over and our current models begin to break down. Time and space may have indeed simply started at this point and we are seeing the beginnings of reality. The original cause shortly before the beginning of the Big Bang was the uncaused cause, always primed into motion and creating everything, including time.

We are also treating time as a single mechanical line that behaves constantly the same way. This may work for life on earth, but once we start stretching into larger and larger physics this idea quickly turns out to be false.

Fourth, how does adding another link to the causal chain and declaring this cause to be nonphysical and atemporal though special pleading help solve the problem of the infinite regress? If I can arbitrarily designate anything I want as the first cause, what's stopping me from picking something else as opposed to your specific being?

Fifth, was there any instance when the universe did not exist, i.e. was there a time before time?

Sixth, does this being have thoughts? If not, how can it be intelligent? If it has thoughts, then what caused those thoughts, and what causes them to change.

Seventh, how does an immaterial mind produce anything and influence anything outside of itself? Unless you want to go "special pleading", there really is no imaginable way for this to happen.

Eighth, why can the cause be a blind deterministic immaterial cause without intelligence?

I can easily go on. The cosmological argument is weak and tries to use poor philosophy to argue God into existence. In short, it cannot avoid the philosophical problems of God without validating other possibilities. You can't argue for atemporality without simultaneously allowing other causes to fill God's place as the atemporal cause.

P.S. If it feels like I rushed through and did not go into great detail, it's because I'm tired of writing novel-length answers that deal with every possible response before the response comes up. I would rather deal with the specific response.

 

[prov1810]

Fourth, how does adding another link to the causal chain and declaring this cause to be nonphysical and atemporal though special pleading help solve the problem of the infinite regress?

It's an argument from contingency, which we see everywhere. There must be an uncaused cause. And an infinite series of contingent beings is as unable to cause itself as one contingent being.

 

[Tree of Life]

How do you interpret the first chapter of Romans? v20: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

Consider the full context:

Romans 1:19-20 - For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

This is called "natural revelation" - the revelation that comes to us through the light of nature. "Special revelation" is God's theophonic revelation as it's recorded in Scripture and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

God's existence is only plain because he has clearly revealed it.

It requires no faith to believe in a creator, only logic. The physical universe began a finite time ago because an infinite causal chain is absurd. The cause must have been nonphysical and atemporal, or there would be another cause behind it. The universe did not have a blind mechanistic physical cause, so it was intended by some sort of intelligence. It is logically necessary to believe in this powerful, transcendent, intelligent Being.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. Faith is logical. But acknowledgement that God exists is far from faith.

 

[Ken-1122]

The question was what sort of evidence would we expect of God? My position is that God has left in the historical record precisely the kind of evidence we should look for. Especially in the light of his desire for faith.

I’ve never understood the necessity of faith. I mean; if you speak the truth, why not provide empirical evidence? The only reason I can imagine someone insisting on faith is to convince people of a lie.

It doesn’t surprise me a Christian would see the type of evidence found in the Bible as what should be expected from God. Just as the Muslim would expect the type of evidence found in the Koran, the Hindu the Vedas and every other religion would expect to find the evidence found in whatever sacred book they perceive as holy.

Even though most of the objections you make have been resolved for centuries, it is certainly your prerogative to reject it. But evidence rejected is not the same as evidence unseen.

God Bless
Jax

And evidence unseen is not the same as evidence rejected.

Ken