Where's Waldo? Another thread about God's existence

[Resha Caner]

3sigma, if you're still interested here is the thread. So let's start with this question: What is your criteria for demonstrating the existence of God?

For those not tuned in to this discussion, this is a spinoff from this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7509184/#post55981353

 

[Tinker Grey]

Define what you mean by 'god' or 'God' and we can discuss criteria for determining his/her/its existence.

 

[Resha Caner]

Basically a traditional Christian view of God ... of the Lutheran persuasion. It's hard to summarize that in one post. We'd have to start at Genesis 1:1 and go to Revelation 22:21.

As noted, this is a spinoff from another thread, so I'm not coming into this with a specific point to make. If 3sigma doesn't show, this will die pretty quickly, because I'm not interested in having people tell me all the things about God that are impossible to prove.

Still, if someone has a serious question for me, or if someone actually plans to list some criteria, I'm open to going with the flow.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Did you PM 3sigma?

In any case, the text of the Bible doesn't define God except perhaps as what man experiences as god[sup]*[/sup]. A definition is one criterion that I require to begin the examination of a god's existence. For example, 'creator' is not enough unless by that term you mean that God is continuously creating. Then, at least, we could ask what is it and where is it that he is creating and can I see it.

In short, the existence of anything should have effects. If there are no effects, I am not sure we have any business inferring existence. Without effects, existence doesn't differ from non-existence. A rock, even though it just sits there, can be weighed, felt, and seen.

So, to posit the existence of God I would need some plausible effects that would not otherwise exist without him. That is, if your God exists what would I see if he didn't exist?

For me, the question is a big problem. For example, if you were to say morality. I'd say that evolutionary psychology explains that. That is, you can't demonstrate God's existence by saying morality since I believe we have morality and we don't have God. Of course, I can't disprove god(s) by saying 'morality' either.

IOW, I am not sure the question can be discussed without affirming the consequent. I.e., it makes sense to me that morality exists without gods because we have morality without gods while you might say it makes sense that we have morality with God since he obviously made everything.

[sup]*[/sup]Interestingly, one jewish comentator noted that what where God say his name is "I AM" can be translated "I will be what I will be." He is to be experienced.

 

[sandwiches]

Basically a traditional Christian view of God ... of the Lutheran persuasion. It's hard to summarize that in one post. We'd have to start at Genesis 1:1 and go to Revelation 22:21.

As noted, this is a spinoff from another thread, so I'm not coming into this with a specific point to make. If 3sigma doesn't show, this will die pretty quickly, because I'm not interested in having people tell me all the things about God that are impossible to prove.

Still, if someone has a serious question for me, or if someone actually plans to list some criteria, I'm open to going with the flow.

If you simply mean YHWH of the Bible, then I'd say that the criteria is in the book itself. It lays out actions, events, feelings, and properties unique to YHWH, as it relates to humans. For instance, there is evidence that a global flood never occurred as described in the Bible within the time frame of when Noah was supposed to have lived. Is that a failed criteria of YHWH. I would think so.

I would think a better question for this particular subject of the Abrahamic god would be: After how many disproved claims from the Bible regarding YHWH would we have to concede that the if there is a god, it's not the Abrahamic one?

 

[3sigma]

What is your criteria for demonstrating the existence of God?

First, as Tinker Grey has noted, we need to define what you mean by ‘God’. So please give us a factual description of your God. If we are going to determine whether it is real or not, we need something we can test and verify.

Second, please provide some sound, objective evidence that your God is real.

To prevent any confusion about the meanings of common English words such as factual, sound, objective or real, use the standard dictionary definitions found here.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

3sigma, if you're still interested here is the thread. So let's start with this question: What is your criteria for demonstrating the existence of God?

For those not tuned in to this discussion, this is a spinoff from this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7509184/#post55981353

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For me personally, I think the rapture would be a good start. People disappearing, a trumpet that everyone in the world can hear simultaneously. Maybe seeing angels. Yeah, that might do it...

 

[Resha Caner]

First, as Tinker Grey has noted, we need to define what you mean by ‘God’.

I understand that we need to set the context of the conversation. I hope you will understand a few things as well.

First, I don't have a ready-made, clinical description of God. Learning about God is a process, not a completed task. I'm still learning about my wife, my kids, my job, etc. Given that God is bigger than all of that put together, I don't see how I could put him in a box.

Second, then, this is going to be a process, not a single post. Just as you have information to gather from me, I have information to gather from you. I need to know what traits you think can be proven. Let's start with love. In 1 John 4:8 it says, "God is love." For the moment put aside whether you accept the authenticity of that text. The question I'm asking is (first) whether you think "love" exists, and (second) whether love can be proven. Because, I could claim that one aspect of God is love.

In the same way, I could claim that Eleanor Roosevelt was a loving person. Just as John was a close friend of Jesus, so Larry Fuchs was a close friend of Eleanor Roosevelt, and called her a loving person.

The AMERICAN EXPERIENCE | Eleanor Roosevelt | Enhanced Transcript (I)

Does the statement of Fuchs prove anything about ER? If love can be proven, yet his statement is not sufficient, then what evidence is needed?

If love can't be proven, then what personality traits can?

For instance, there is evidence that a global flood never occurred as described in the Bible within the time frame of when Noah was supposed to have lived

Third, challenging claims like this is just going to spin the thread off into a thousand digressions. So let me do something else instead. The root question is about God, not the Bible. It is not my view, but suppose the Bible did err in describing Noah. Does that negate every comment the Bible makes? One mistake and it's all mush? If Noah is wrong, then 1 John is also wrong? I don't think you would take that position. It would mean that if I can find a single flaw in any biography, I can discount it. And I bet there is a flaw in every biography ever written. The conclusion would be that we don't know anything about anything.

So, there you have it. A statement about God (love), and a few questions to go with it.

 

[sandwiches]

Third, challenging claims like this is just going to spin the thread off into a thousand digressions. So let me do something else instead. The root question is about God, not the Bible. It is not my view, but suppose the Bible did err in describing Noah. Does that negate every comment the Bible makes? One mistake and it's all mush? If Noah is wrong, then 1 John is also wrong? I don't think you would take that position. It would mean that if I can find a single flaw in any biography, I can discount it. And I bet there is a flaw in every biography ever written. The conclusion would be that we don't know anything about anything.

So, there you have it. A statement about God (love), and a few questions to go with it.

That's why I asked how many claims would have to be disproved before we have to concede that the god of the Bible does not accurately describe the creator god?

 

[3sigma]

First, I don't have a ready-made, clinical description of God. Learning about God is a process, not a completed task. I'm still learning about my wife, my kids, my job, etc. Given that God is bigger than all of that put together, I don't see how I could put him in a box.

Okay, let’s begin with something simple and basic. Let’s use your wife as a reference so that we will see how easily you could answer my questions if they are about something real such as your wife, yet how you will struggle to answer them when they are about your God. What is your wife’s composition? Is she made from matter, energy or something else? That’s a simple enough question to answer. Now, what is your God’s composition? Is it made from matter, energy or something else? Justify your answer with enough sound evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The question I'm asking is (first) whether you think "love" exists, and (second) whether love can be proven. Because, I could claim that one aspect of God is love.

Again, with reference to your wife, would you say she is love? No, of course you wouldn’t. She is a person who probably feels love or exhibits love in her words and actions. Love is an emotion, not something that has an objective, independent existence. Love is a feeling you have. It is all in your mind. Are you claiming that your God is just a feeling you have; that it is all in your mind?

It would be difficult to prove that your wife loves you because you cannot actually see her thoughts and feelings. You can only observe her behaviour. She may appear to love you, but you never really know…

If we read the Bible or observe the purported behaviour of your God does it show that your God is loving? Any God that would deliberately and indiscriminately kill every child, toddler and baby on the entire planet doesn’t appear to be loving to me, but maybe you believe such acts are loving.

Just give us a factual description of your God. Some basic attributes such as its composition, size, mass, etc. would be a reasonable start. I’m sure you could give a factual description of your wife. I’m just asking you to do the same for this God that you apparently believe is as real as your wife.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's why I asked how many claims would have to be disproved before we have to concede that the god of the Bible does not accurately describe the creator god?

Alright. Sorry, I missed that. It's a request that may seem reasonable on the surface, but will be very difficult to implement. We would first have to agree on a method for extracting facts from the Bible that we're going to test. Are our facts going to be straight data, or will we allow induction & deduction? For example, your Noah example is based on those methods. The Bible makes no explicit claim that "Noah lived from x BC to y BC." So, you must deduce a date from other information ... and there is where we'll start arguing about whether that should go on the list as a fact. We can even argue the use of words describing the extent of the flood. When claiming it engulfed the whole world, did that mean the entire surface of the earth, the entirety occupied by humans, or the entirety known to Noah? I'm not saying which one of those I would argue for, just that such arguments would occur between us.

Then, how can we even verify things like Abraham's existence? They are claims with no extra-Biblical evidence - something I expect you would demand. Yet even if you demand it, the absence of extra-Biblical evidence is not proof of his non-existence.

Even if we mounted those obstacles, I have no idea what number I would pick. Theologically I'd say: 100%. But even if I modified that for this discussion, do you think 80% is reasonable, or would it have to be 90%, 95%? And then there is the nightmare of my engineering experiences. When I was a young engineer I would ask these questions: what is the threshold for accepting a design? From my boss I'd get this, "Oh, well if it's below 50% I'll obviously reject it, and if it's above 95% I'll obviously accept it." Then I would come back with something like 93.6%, and he'd do this, "Hmm. Well. Hmm. I guess we'll go with that. Or should we?"

 

[Resha Caner]

Let’s use your wife as a reference ... basic attributes such as its composition, size, mass, etc.

Are you kidding? You must not be married. I don't think she would appreciate that. And the truth is, I have absolutely no idea what her mass is. And even though I could theoretically weigh her, I'm not sure I could actually accomplish it in real life. It might end out marriage. Don't you see that such is the difficulty. You may take this as an abstract question, but I don't. I don't know my wife's mass, and I don't need to for verifying her existence.

Of course she's material. This is one area where I differ from many Christians. I believe I am 100% material. My soul is material. It is the angels and God that are described as spirit. But what that means is never explained by the Bible. The literal words used mean things like "wind" and "breath", so I could conclude he is an energy capable of moving material, but that is dangerous speculation.

Again, with reference to your wife, would you say she is love? No, of course you wouldn’t. She is a person who probably feels love or exhibits love in her words and actions. Love is an emotion, not something that has an objective, independent existence. Love is a feeling you have. It is all in your mind. Are you claiming that your God is just a feeling you have; that it is all in your mind?

Again, I'd prefer to use other examples like Eleanor Roosevelt, since I can point to parallel claims. God is loving. ER was loving. And that is my interpretation of the verse, that God is a perfect embodiment of love. I'm not a believer in Plato's forms.

It would be difficult to prove that your wife loves you

Of course it would. I would never claim that is possible. And yet I go on believing it. Foolish me. Even proving a trait such as someone being a "loving person" is incredibly difficult. That's my challenge. How would we ever prove the traits that make up God?

You seem to miss that I don't think I can prove it you. It is information that can only be conveyed by personal experience and relationships. You can think that's bunk if you so choose, but [shrug] I've got nothing else. Just as I can't prove my relationship to any human being, I can't prove my relationship to God.

 

[3sigma]

I could conclude he is an energy capable of moving material, but that is dangerous speculation.

Have you noticed yet how you are already struggling to answer my questions? You say that of course your wife is material, but you struggle to answer the question when it is about your God. I asked you to tell us whether your God is composed of matter, energy or something else and to justify your answer with enough sound evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt—and you can’t. You can’t even tell us for a fact whether your God is composed of matter or energy.

Again, I'd prefer to use other examples like Eleanor Roosevelt, since I can point to parallel claims. God is loving. ER was loving. And that is my interpretation of the verse, that God is a perfect embodiment of love.

You are already beginning to evade my questions. I asked you if your God is just a feeling you have and whether it is all in your mind. This isn’t an answer to that question. So is this your answer to my question: does the Bible show your God is loving, where I gave the example of it deliberately killing every child, toddler and baby on the entire planet? Are you telling us that you are another Christian who thinks that even though your God allegedly slaughtered every child on the planet, you believe it is a “perfect embodiment of love”? If so then I’m reluctant to explore your thoughts in that direction any further. The last time I did that, I was the one accused of blasphemy.

That's my challenge. How would we ever prove the traits that make up God?
…
Just as I can't prove my relationship to any human being, I can't prove my relationship to God.

No, that wasn’t your challenge. In your OP, you asked me, “What is [sic] your criteria for demonstrating the existence of God?” I replied that first you would need to define your God by giving us a factual description of it. Then you would need to provide some sound, objective evidence that your God is real. You could do this for your wife who is real so why do you struggle to do it for your God? What could be the reason for that, I wonder?

Here you are attempting to shift the goalposts to proving your relationship with your God. In your OP, you didn’t ask what are my criteria for proving your relationship with your God. You asked what are my criteria for proving beyond reasonable doubt that your God even exists for you to have a relationship with it. You can’t even take the first step along that path by telling us for a fact whether it is composed of matter or energy. Why on Earth would you believe something is as real as your wife when you can’t even begin to give us a factual description of what it is you believe in?

 

[Resha Caner]

Have you noticed yet how you are already struggling to answer my questions?

Well, not really. I'm not even trying to answer your questions. I'll elaborate on that more in a little bit. First ...

Then you would need to provide some sound, objective evidence that your God is real. You could do this for your wife who is real so why do you struggle to do it for your God?

Actually, no. I didn't answer your questions about my wife. I gave you but one small piece of the many things you asked for. Why would you take my comment that she was material as "evidence" of her existence? Were you expecting me to say I had married someone immaterial? I would think things like a marriage certificate, pictures of me and her at the wedding, etc. would be better proof than a single comment. IMO you accepted it because of your preconceptions: she exists, God doesn't. But if a statement from me on material existence is all that you require for proving existence, well then, here is my statement: Yes, God incarnated himself in material form and his name was Jesus. Bing! I've proved God exists. Hmm. Somehow I suspect you're not going to accept that. In fact, I suspect the opposite - that you accept my wife's material nature as proof of her existence and will use Jesus' material nature to reject God's existence.

I asked you to tell us whether your God is composed of matter, energy or something else and to justify your answer with enough sound evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt—and you can’t. You can’t even tell us for a fact whether your God is composed of matter or energy.

I did make a comment about "composition", in that God is spirit. If you don't understand that word, maybe you should check here. But the only reason I said that is because the Bible says it (John 4:24 and many other verses). I've now commented on his material nature, again because the Bible says it (John 1:14). As I said before: beyond that I'm not going to speculate.

So, yes, I asked for your criteria. And yes, you gave me some. But I wasn't trying to evade any questions or shift any goalposts. I thought I said it pretty straight out: I can't answer the questions you're asking. If you want to spike the ball and declare victory, go ahead. But IMO you're not in the endzone yet. My reason for mentioning "experience" and "relationship" was to list the avenues through which I know God. But you're right. That was probably jumping too far too fast.

So, let's back up. I'll repeat a point I tried to make in my previous post. I don't know my wife's mass (as Caner looks over his shoulder to make sure she's not watching this). Yet I'm still convinced she exists. Is that unreasonable? Do I need to know God's mass to know he exists or can we at least take that one off the list? Next, it seemed we agreed that I can't prove she loves me either. And I asked a question. Am I a fool to accept what she says? But again, maybe we're just not ready for that discussion yet.

If so, then we're definitely not ready for the issue you raised: How can God say he is loving and yet condemn people? If you want to hold this question for later, then do so.

But first, it seems I need to address an implied question: Why can't I meet your criteria?

My answer was: Because God hasn't told me. But to you that seems like equivocating, avoidance, triteness, or something of that sort. I'm sorry, but I don't know if I can do anything about that. There are a lot of things God hasn't told me. He hasn't told me if electrons are "real" (inside joke). He hasn't told me who he prefers to win the World Series. He hasn't told me if he likes to eat Chinese food. There are an infinite number of things he hasn't told me.

For you that still isn't sufficient because you have your criteria for existence.

The only example I can think to offer is this (and you're not going to like it): try to convince a blind man that light exists. FYI, my roommate in college was blind and I attempted to explain color to him. I was afraid he would be offended at first, but he told me he actually enjoyed it. No one had ever given him anything but a scientific explanation prior to my attempt. I used other sensations to give him a frame of reference - red is hot, blue is cold, things like that. Anyway, the best I can do is try to explain my view. I can't have the experience for you.

 

[3sigma]

Well, not really. I'm not even trying to answer your questions.

I see. So you asked me what my criteria are for demonstrating that your God exists then, when I make quite reasonable requests for a factual description and sound evidence, you won’t even try to answer them. Was it expecting too much to think that you might deal honestly with me?

Why would you take my comment that she was material as "evidence" of her existence?

I didn’t, but perhaps this misunderstanding is my fault for not being clear enough. When I said you could provide a factual description of your wife and sound evidence to show that she exists, I meant that it would be possible for you to do so, not that you had done it. So I’ll rephrase the question to clarify it.

It would be quite simple for you to provide a factual description of your wife and provide sound evidence that she exists so why can’t you do that for your God that you presumably believe is as real as your wife?

So, yes, I asked for your criteria. And yes, you gave me some. But I wasn't trying to evade any questions or shift any goalposts.

Right… You just weren’t even trying to answer my questions.

I thought I said it pretty straight out: I can't answer the questions you're asking.

So it isn’t that you are struggling to answer my questions, it’s just that you can’t answer them. Again, it would be quite simple for you to provide a factual description of your wife and provide sound evidence that she exists so why can’t you do that for your God that you presumably believe is as real as your wife?

I'll repeat a point I tried to make in my previous post. I don't know my wife's mass (as Caner looks over his shoulder to make sure she's not watching this). Yet I'm still convinced she exists. Is that unreasonable? Do I need to know God's mass to know he exists or can we at least take that one off the list?

Of course it is reasonable for you to be convinced that your wife is real because you can physically see her, hear her, touch her, etc. You have ample sound evidence that she is real. It is certainly possible for you to provide a factual description of her and provide sound evidence that she is real. However, you can do none of those when it comes to your God. It would be quite simple for you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your wife is real, but I’ll wager that you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real and, as we can see, you aren’t even going to try. So is it reasonable for you to be as convinced that your God is real as you are that your wife is real?

How can God say he is loving and yet condemn people? If you want to hold this question for later, then do so.

You first need to demonstrate that your God even exists before we discuss whether it actually does anything.

Anyway, the best I can do is try to explain my view. I can't have the experience for you.

How have you “experienced” your God? Have you physically seen it with your own eyes, heard it with you own ears, touched it, smelled it or tasted it? I’m guessing you’ve done none of those. I think it is likely that your “experiences” of your God are entirely within your own mind. In a word, you’ve simply imagined it.

 

[Resha Caner]

How have you “experienced” your God? Have you physically seen it with your own eyes, heard it with you own ears, touched it, smelled it or tasted it? I’m guessing you’ve done none of those. I think it is likely that your “experiences” of your God are entirely within your own mind. In a word, you’ve simply imagined it.

You would be wrong.

So it isn’t that you are struggling to answer my questions, it’s just that you can’t answer them.

Yes, but I am willing to discuss your questions. I understand that your view is rooted in a belief that the spiritual does not exist. But I think the evidence you demand creates a criteria for existence that is narrower than what you accept in practice.

To demonstrate that, I am saying the example of my wife does not suffice. I'm not trying to be evasive. That you don't discuss any other example amongst those I have offered makes it seem as if you're not really listening to (i.e. fully reading) my replies.

So what of Eleanor Roosevelt? Did she exist? And though you may have seen her picture and heard her recorded voice, is any "evidence" of her existence anything but second hand? Let's go back a little farther. Pick, say, Robert Hook. We have paintings of his rival, Isaac Newton, but no paintings of Robert Hook - only his writings. Those writings could have been forged ... after all we all know that Francis Bacon actually wrote Shakespeare's plays, so maybe Newton forged Robert Hook into existence. (Just in case you miss it, please note the sarcasm of that example) And then, as you go farther back into ancient history, we don't even have contemporary accounts for many historical persons. Were any of them real?

 

[3sigma]

You would be wrong.

You are being evasive, again. I asked you how you have “experienced” your God. You evaded that question. Tell us how you have experienced your God to show us that I am wrong to think you simply imagine it. Show us that your “experiences” of it aren’t just all in your mind. Please stop being so evasive.

To demonstrate that, I am saying the example of my wife does not suffice. I'm not trying to be evasive. That you don't discuss any other example amongst those I have offered makes it seem as if you're not really listening to (i.e. fully reading) my replies.

Your wife is the best example to use. You claim to have a personal relationship right now with your God. You say you have had “experiences” with your God. You have said that it answers your prayers. From this, we can see that you think your God currently exists. Your wife also currently exists and you have a relationship with her right now. You have experiences with your wife and, no doubt, she answers you when you speak to her. It is quite reasonable to use your wife as an example. So please answer the question you keep evading. It would be quite simple for you to provide a factual description of your wife and provide sound evidence that she exists so why can’t you do that for your God that you presumably believe is as real as your wife?

So what of Eleanor Roosevelt? Did she exist? And though you may have seen her picture and heard her recorded voice, is any "evidence" of her existence anything but second hand?

You are correct that the further we go back in time, the less sound evidence we have that things actually existed and aren’t just myths or legends. In which case, we should proportion our belief to the evidence. If there is a reasonable amount of sound evidence that something exists or existed such as photos, videos, audio recordings, writings or newspaper articles then it is reasonable to believe it. If there is less than a reasonable amount of sound evidence that something exists or existed then it is less than reasonable to believe it. If there is zero sound evidence that something exists or existed then it is completely unreasonable to believe it.

However, you apparently believe that your God exists right now and that you have a personal relationship with it, but you cannot even provide a factual description of your God or a single shred of sound evidence to support your belief. Again, it would be quite simple for you to provide a factual description of your wife and provide sound evidence that she exists so why can’t you do that for your God that you presumably believe is as real as your wife? Please stop evading the question.

 

[Resha Caner]

You are being evasive, again.

3sigma, I've heard you. You think I'm being evasive. In the very beginning I said this would be a process that would take time. If you think I've failed to meet your criteria and there is nothing more to say, then you need not reply. When I began this thread I had no expectation that I would convince you God exists. The best I could possibly do is help you understand why I say what I do.

This is not an easy topic. When you took your first algebra class did you demand the teacher tell you everything about algebra on the first day, and then accuse him/her of being evasive because that didn't happen? If you're serious about this conversation, and not simply looking for a quick dismissal of my beliefs, then you'll need to be patient.

Your criteria are what I would call "scientific evidence." I've said I can't provide that. How is that evasive? It seems pretty straight forward to me. I know some people look to prove that the miracles given in the Bible are scientifically possible, but that's not something I've ever based my belief on, so why should I bring it up?

(Edit: Sorry, but I thought of something else scientifically related. I think Josh McDowell is trying to present a scientific case in his Evidence books. What is odd, though, is that he builds his case on historical evidence mixed with philosophical posturing. So, while I found it a very useful introduction to Biblical historical evidence and a good discussion on the use of historical method with respect to religious topics (Van Harvey has another good book on that), it was disappointing as a "proof".)

From there I've said that I think you would actually accept other forms of evidence even though you didn't say it. So I'm now asking for clarification on that point. I've asked if you will accept historical evidence. Your answer contained a lot of qualifications in it, but I think you said, yes, that you would accept historical evidence. Even then, you wouldn't answer my question "Did Eleanor Roosevelt exist?" So who is being evasive? If you are going to demand black & white answers from me, can't I expect the same from you?

Your wife is the best example to use. You claim to have a personal relationship right now with your God. You say you have had “experiences” with your God. You have said that it answers your prayers. From this, we can see that you think your God currently exists. Your wife also currently exists and you have a relationship with her right now. You have experiences with your wife and, no doubt, she answers you when you speak to her....

Seriously, are you married? She answers when I speak to her? Well, sometimes. Sorry. I couldn't resist the joke ... although it does apply to whether I think God answers everything I say ... anyway, moving on.

It is quite reasonable to use your wife as an example. So please answer the question you keep evading. It would be quite simple for you to provide a factual description of your wife and provide sound evidence that she exists so why can’t you do that for your God that you presumably believe is as real as your wife?

Because my wife is not a god. (See, there's another great joke in there, but, oh well.) Just as I wouldn't try to provide scientific evidence for Eleanor Roosevelt (in terms of specifying her mass, composition, size, etc.) but would instead use historical evidence ... and just as I wouldn't use historical evidence to prove my wife's existence because she is alive, so also there are many different kinds of evidence for different situations. But you didn't list them, so I need to ask for clarification on what you will and won't accept before I start talking about why I believe God exists.

Maybe you think I'm trying to lay a trap. I'm not. Even if you were to agree with my categories of evidence, you certainly don't have to agree with my specific evidence. All evidence carries with it a level of confidence.

My plan is to go through the different types of evidence one by one and either gain your acceptance or have you reject them. The remaining categories, if you must know, are: legal, testimonial, and experiential. Then I sometimes debate whether archaeological evidence should be placed in the scientific category, the historical category, or be its own category. When I'm done, if you think I've left one out, please mention it.

Anyway, the next category would be legal. That would involve certificates, contracts, and court proceedings. Court proceedings involve presentation of other categories of evidence: scientific, historical, witnesses, expert opinions, etc. that concludes with the decision of a judge or jury.

Do you accept that (with the understanding that it is also limited to applicable situations and is further limited by confidence in the data used)? I used this example earlier with my wife. Even though my wife may exist as a person, she only exists as my wife based upon legal evidence. But it seemed we were rushing through this too fast, so I've backed up and slowed down.

 

[sandwiches]

Alright. Sorry, I missed that. It's a request that may seem reasonable on the surface, but will be very difficult to implement. We would first have to agree on a method for extracting facts from the Bible that we're going to test. Are our facts going to be straight data, or will we allow induction & deduction? For example, your Noah example is based on those methods. The Bible makes no explicit claim that "Noah lived from x BC to y BC." So, you must deduce a date from other information ... and there is where we'll start arguing about whether that should go on the list as a fact. We can even argue the use of words describing the extent of the flood. When claiming it engulfed the whole world, did that mean the entire surface of the earth, the entirety occupied by humans, or the entirety known to Noah? I'm not saying which one of those I would argue for, just that such arguments would occur between us.

Then, how can we even verify things like Abraham's existence? They are claims with no extra-Biblical evidence - something I expect you would demand. Yet even if you demand it, the absence of extra-Biblical evidence is not proof of his non-existence.

It seems basically you're stating that there's no way to objectively test the veracity of the claims in the Bible. So, again, why do you believe them? After, you must feel there's enough credibility there to be trusted with your faith.

Even if we mounted those obstacles, I have no idea what number I would pick. Theologically I'd say: 100%. But even if I modified that for this discussion, do you think 80% is reasonable, or would it have to be 90%, 95%? And then there is the nightmare of my engineering experiences. When I was a young engineer I would ask these questions: what is the threshold for accepting a design? From my boss I'd get this, "Oh, well if it's below 50% I'll obviously reject it, and if it's above 95% I'll obviously accept it." Then I would come back with something like 93.6%, and he'd do this, "Hmm. Well. Hmm. I guess we'll go with that. Or should we?"[/QUOTE]

If I have an ad in the paper selling a car and I describe it as being blue, convertible, Chevy, 1980 but you visit me to buy it and find out that it's actually red, not convertible, Ford, but it is a 1980 model, would you accept that I was selling you the car from the ad, since one of those properties I mentioned was true?

 

[3sigma]

Just as I wouldn't try to provide scientific evidence for Eleanor Roosevelt (in terms of specifying her mass, composition, size, etc.) but would instead use historical evidence ... and just as I wouldn't use historical evidence to prove my wife's existence because she is alive, so also there are many different kinds of evidence for different situations. But you didn't list them, so I need to ask for clarification on what you will and won't accept before I start talking about why I believe God exists.

Here is the crux of the matter and it is helpful that you have made these statements because we can use them as a foundation for the following discussion.

I agree that you cannot use evidence such as composition, mass, size, etc. to prove the existence of someone who no longer exists such as Eleanor Roosevelt.

I agree that it would be silly to try to use historical, legal or testimonial evidence to prove your wife’s existence because she currently exists and you would be able to provide evidence such as her composition, mass, size, etc. After all, you can physically see, hear and touch your wife.

Now, into which of those two categories does your God fall? Is it something you believe no longer exists or is it something you believe currently exists? It is clear from our conversations so far that you believe your God currently exists. You have said it answers your prayers. You have said you have a personal relationship with it. You have said you have experienced it. And in the last four words of your quote above, you say, “I believe God exists.” All of those things indicate that you believe your God currently exists and is as real as your wife.

Given that, it is quite reasonable and appropriate to use the same methods and questions to determine the current existence of your God that we would use to determine the current existence of your wife. So, please provide a factual description of your God. Please provide some sound evidence that your God currently exists. Please explain how you have experienced your God. Have you physically seen, heard or touched your God? How has your God answered your prayers? Have you physically heard its voice? Can you give us anything to show that your belief in your God is not simply your imagination?