What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Ken-1122]

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

How are you defining faith?

Ken

 

[jax5434]

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.

I suppose the glib reply would be "it doesn't surprise me that an Athiest would reject evidence of God found in the bible". However that is probably counter productive. Of all the faiths you mentioned only Christianity is based on a publicly viewed historical event. It is not rooted in self-proclaimed visions, philosophies, or mystical experiences. It is independent of what you or I might like to believe. Disprove the event and you disprove the faith. Its that simple.

And evidence unseen is not the same as evidence rejected.

Thats not what I said but it is true enough. I did not say I believed in God on the basis of "unseen evidence." In fact I presented a bit of the evidence, which you obviously saw because you commented on it. Seeing evidence and rejecting it is not the same as not seeing any.
Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof. I readily admit that I can not "prove" Gods existence any more than you can "prove" his non-existence.

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.

Faith is putting your loyalty and trust in something. You may not have faith in God , but you both have faith, and ask it of others through out your life. Your spouse, your parents, your children. your Doctor, your car mechanic and your employers being examples. Are you trying to convince them of a lie or believe they are trying to convince you of one? Love, honesty, integrity,loyalty are all things you believe in but can't see. You are a person of faith whether you want to believe it or not.

why not provide empirical evidence?

I believe that he has. Thats pretty much the point of this discussion isn't it?



God Bless
Jax

 

[Tree of Life]

How are you defining faith?

Ken

Trust. One can be convinced of God's existence and yet not trust him. One can trust God and not be totally convinced of his existence. More can be said but "trust" is a good, basic definition.

 

[bhsmte]

Trust. One can be convinced of God's existence and yet not trust him. One can trust God and not be totally convinced of his existence. More can be said but "trust" is a good, basic definition.

How does one reconcile in their own mind, trusting something, they are not sure exists?

 

[Tree of Life]

How does one reconcile in their own mind, trusting something, they are not sure exists?

Trust is very active. To trust God usually means to order our lives in a particular way or behave in a particular way - choosing to obey Him even when we don't fully understand his commands or aren't fully convinced of his reality.

In this way it's possible to live by faith while still having doubt. It all comes down to what one actually does and how they order and prioritize their lives.

 

[FireDragon76]

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 real issues comes down to metaphysics. David Bentley Hart makes a good point that personalist theism doesn't really mesh with classical theism, since it places God as a person among other persons. Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig would be examples of personalist theists. For them, God is primarily a person like us, only on a larger scale. A classical theist, on the other hand, emphasizes that God is only analogically similar. Meaning attributes of God such as just, loving, good, and even person and so on, only have analogical meanings.

However, if God is more than God, as he is in classical theism, then really belief in God is down to a question of which worldview better explains our experiences.

 

[Ken-1122]

I suppose the glib reply would be "it doesn't surprise me that an Athiest would reject evidence of God found in the bible". However that is probably counter productive. Of all the faiths you mentioned only Christianity is based on a publicly viewed historical event. It is not rooted in self-proclaimed visions, philosophies, or mystical experiences.

So are you saying modern day historians outside religion confirm Jesus rose from the dead?

Faith is putting your loyalty and trust in something. You may not have faith in God , but you both have faith, and ask it of others through out your life. Your spouse, your parents, your children. your Doctor, your car mechanic and your employers being examples. Are you trying to convince them of a lie or believe they are trying to convince you of one? Love, honesty, integrity,loyalty are all things you believe in but can't see. You are a person of faith whether you want to believe it or not.

Okay; so are you defining faith as believing the obvious? If so, why would he say without faith it is impossible to please God? To believe the obvious is a natural reaction of humans; why would God make it a point to require this?


Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Trust. One can be convinced of God's existence and yet not trust him. One can trust God and not be totally convinced of his existence. More can be said but "trust" is a good, basic definition.

To trust the obvious? Or to trust that which is not obvioius!

Ken

 

[Tree of Life]

To trust the obvious? Or to trust that which is not obvioius!

Ken

Faith is a kind of relationship. It's not trusting in the existence of God. It's trusting in the goodness, wisdom, reliability, benevolence, etc of God. It's the difference between knowing a person exists and personally trusting that person.

 

[bhsmte]

Trust is very active. To trust God usually means to order our lives in a particular way or behave in a particular way - choosing to obey Him even when we don't fully understand his commands or aren't fully convinced of his reality.

In this way it's possible to live by faith while still having doubt. It all comes down to what one actually does and how they order and prioritize their lives.

To trust something someone is not sure exists, would be false trust and simply psychological gymnastics IMO.

When I trust something, I assign a level of experience and results to build that trust and that would include, having no question something is real.

I trust my car will start in the morning because I know my car is real and the battery is relatively new and it has started everyday for the past 2 years. I trust the sun will come up in the morning because the track record is there and I know the sun is real, because I can see it with my eyes and feel it's impact on my body.

Faith, is a different story. I have faith the Cubs will win the world series before I die. I have faith I will win lotto some day.

 

[True Scotsman]

Like all evidence it would be objective and observable. It would be found by looking outward at reality, not inward to the mind. It would be verifiable.

It would not look like all of the evidences that have been offered so far.

It would not be for instance an unexplained phenomenon. "We don't know how it happened" is not evidence for a god.

It would not be in the form of a feeling or intuition.

It would not be a dream or a vision.

It would not be a story in a book.

It would not be in the form of personal incredulity. "I can't believe it happened naturally" is not evidence for gods.

It would not be the fact that existence exists. That is evidence that stuff exists and that's all it is evidence of. You can't get to the concept of the supernatural objectively, by looking at reality. We can imagine the supernatural. You can by imagining it but the imaginary is just that, imaginary.

It is not the Bible. The Bible can not be used as evidence alone since to do so would be circular reasoning. The Bible can not be both the claim and the evidence for the claim.

 

[jax5434]

So are you saying modern day historians outside religion confirm Jesus rose from the dead

?

No. What I am saying is that something extraordinary happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. A faith was born that changed the entire world. The founders of the faith insisted that their leader Jesus Ben Joseph (later Jesus Christ) was crucified, died, and rose from the dead. An event that they said was real and historical. All of the founders were persecuted and ,except for one, died for that belief. As did many others.
No one, so far as I know, denies the churches existence or when it first originated. So the question is what could best explain this?

Were they lying, having mass hallucinations, inventing a clever lie for no personal gain, fooled by a Jesus who merely swooned into believing he rose from the dead? You can offer any other possible explanation you want. But I am making the claim that the best explanation is that the resurrection is that was a real historical event.

This is in a scientific sense a "falsifiable theory" that means that is testable and could possibly be proven wrong.

Got to go will respond to the rest later
God Bless
Jax

 

[bhsmte]

?

No. What I am saying is that something extraordinary happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. A faith was born that changed the entire world. The founders of the faith insisted that their leader Jesus Ben Joseph (later Jesus Christ) was crucified, died, and rose from the dead. An event that they said was real and historical. All of the founders were persecuted and ,except for one, died for that belief. As did many others.
No one, so far as I know, denies the churches existence or when it first originated. So the question is what could best explain this?

Were they lying, having mass hallucinations, inventing a clever lie for no personal gain, fooled by a Jesus who merely swooned into believing he rose from the dead? You can offer any other possible explanation you want. But I am making the claim that the best explanation is that the resurrection is that was a real historical event.

This is in a scientific sense a "falsifiable theory" that means that is testable and could possibly be proven wrong.

Got to go will respond to the rest later
God Bless
Jax

No historian, doing legit historical work, confirms the resurrection as being real. Historians look at a multitude of different evidences and factors, to determine what likely happened in the past. When it comes to people rising from the dead, the least likely explanation, is a miracle and all sorts of other (more likely explanations) will be given more weight.

Legit NT historians agree on the following from a consensus standpoint:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, historical credibility is absent.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, I find that God is so more than any of us can know; so we can't, really, define Him and "prove" He exists.

But this universe is evidence that He exists; because it is created by Him. But you need to be able to see it as evidence.

And the human body is evidence of His capability to make something so complicated and still able to function, even with problems that come against our bodies. So, this is evidence of how capable God is; however, we need to be able to see that this is such evidence.

But He is not controlled by our logic and dictating of what is right and what is evidence . . . "and what is 'fair'".

Ones can believe that "Mother Nature" is good; yet, we know "Mother Nature" can be "unfair". But we simply do what we can to not cross how things can work in nature, "and we take advantage of how "Mother Nature" can do us good " Ones do not just deny the existence of nature; but ones, if wise, will adjust.

But there are ones who take much better advantage of how nature works, while others try to use nature for very selfish "benefits".

However, "God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, whether ones admit it or not, they in their pride are having their run-in with God's resistance. We see how this is working; this is evidence for us who can see it and benefit from submitting to Him.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I find that God is so more than any of us can know; so we can't, really, define Him and "prove" He exists.

But this universe is evidence that He exists; because it is created by Him. But you need to be able to see it as evidence.

And the human body is evidence of His capability to make something so complicated and still able to function, even with problems that come against our bodies. So, this is evidence of how capable God is; however, we need to be able to see that this is such evidence.

But He is not controlled by our logic and dictating of what is right and what is evidence . . . "and what is 'fair'".

Ones can believe that "Mother Nature" is good; yet, we know "Mother Nature" can be "unfair". But we simply do what we can to not cross how things can work in nature, "and we take advantage of how "Mother Nature" can do us good " Ones do not just deny the existence of nature; but ones, if wise, will adjust.

But there are ones who take much better advantage of how nature works, while others try to use nature for very selfish "benefits".

However, "God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, whether ones admit it or not, they in their pride are having their run-in with God's resistance. We see how this is working; this is evidence for us who can see it and benefit from submitting to Him.

To say the universe is evidence that points directly to a God, takes a certain psychological predisposition. The universe could be evidence of a lot of things, that are not God, or maybe, not the God you think it is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, I find that God is so more than any of us can know; so we can't, really, define Him and "prove" He exists.

Okay.

But this universe is evidence that He exists; because it is created by Him.

That is circular logic. You are assuming your conclusion in the argument.

But you need to be able to see it as evidence.

Of course, but that requires some kind of clear and unambiguous case, and it isn't helped at all by your admission that no one can define God or prove that God exists.

And the human body is evidence of His capability to make something so complicated and still able to function, even with problems that come against our bodies.

The human body is also evidence of the capacity for natural selection to make complex, functioning biological organisms. The difference here is that scientists have a case to make with detailed scientific investigation. No one claims to understand how God made human bodies function.

But He is not controlled by our logic and dictating of what is right and what is evidence

No, but the justifications of knowledge claims are controlled by precisely that.

All you seem to be doing here is engaging in circular logic and claiming that God is above reason, therefore God exists because you say so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

?
No. What I am saying is that something extraordinary happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. A faith was born that changed the entire world. The founders of the faith insisted that their leader Jesus Ben Joseph (later Jesus Christ) was crucified, died, and rose from the dead. An event that they said was real and historical. All of the founders were persecuted and ,except for one, died for that belief. As did many others.
No one, so far as I know, denies the churches existence or when it first originated. So the question is what could best explain this?

So this is what you ment when you said Christianity is based upon a publicly viewed historical event? Can't the same be said for all religions and cults?

Ken

 

[jax5434]

So this is what you ment when you said Christianity is based upon a publicly viewed historical event? Can't the same be said for all religions and cults?

No. Look at it this way. Islam is based on a vision that Mohammed claimed he had in the absence of any witnesses. Joseph Smith (LDS) made the same claim. Manchi also had a vision. Buddhism and Hinduism are rooted in mystical experience that can not be verified.

Christianity is anchored to a specific moment in secular history like no other faith. You can not disprove someones claim to a vision. You can not disprove mystical experience. We claim that the resurrection was a historical event. Just like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Alexander the Great conquering the known world, Homer writing the Iliad and the Odyssey, The existence of Plato ect. Further we claim that the same kinds of historical evidence used to prove these peoples existence can be used to prove the ressurrection to the same degree of probability.

Christianity is based on a falsifiable claim. That a specific event occured at a specific time and place in history. Disproving this one claim would cause our entire faith to collapse. You can not say that of any other faith known to me.

Further we ask people to investigate this claim for themselves without special pleading. We say that the ressurrection meets the same historical criteria used to validate other ancient historical events.

God Bless
Jax

 

[jax5434]

Beyond that, historical credibility is absent.

If you had said disputed, I would agree with you. But there are a large number of "legit" NT historians who find the resurrection probable. Unless, of course, you define "legit" as being those who do not.

When it comes to people rising from the dead, the least likely explanation, is a miracle and all sorts of other (more likely explanations) will be given more weight.

I have already agreed with you on this. But no matter how much weight is given to them; if they do not stand up to scrutiny they must be rejected.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Smidlee]

Legit NT historians agree on the following from a consensus standpoint:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, historical credibility is absent.

That's like saying we have no credible historic evidence that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet but it's possible written by someone with the same name. (ps It may have not been Hamlet the one that was questioned?)