Demanding scientific evidence for the existence of God is ridiculous

[Gambit]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

 

[Laika]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred.

This is an intresting point. Can you expand on what you mean by "inferred"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

I don't know. Without lapsing into solipsism, we have loads upon loads of observably testable data that it does. Since we define consciousness as awareness of the environment and existence, we can see humans responding as if they do, which is reproducible and observable and thus scientifically quantifiable. I can also define my experience of sensing and modeling my environment as consciousness and see others acting as if they are experiencing the same.

I do agree that scientific evidence for God is ridiculous, though. God is a quality, or way of experiencing the consciousness we do have. It is not quantifiable or reproducible. It may be studied, but only in our subjective experience of it. God is the symbol behind the words.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

I sort of agree with the conclusion. God is something to be freely ignored, exactly because it is by definition not quite evidenciable.

For that same reason, yes, it makes no sense to expect scientific evidence of his existence.


As for we "demanding" such evidence, maybe you are misreading our rejection of the empty blackmailing that some believers end up resorting to?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Can't see that consciousness is an emergent property? One that can be objectively manipulated? Silly person.

 

[George-ananda]

In my (Hindu/Advaita) way of thinking scientific proof of God does not really make sense because it is all God/Brahman in the end. Such a scientific quest to find proof seems to be positing a God that is separate and detectible.

I think some cutting-edge scientists are starting to theorize that this is all consciousness at play and that physical science will never get behind what consciousness really is because it is fundamental and not a derivative of the physical.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness ...

In other words, you insist on your right to make vapid and baseless claims without being challenged. Pretty silly ...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Does it interact with the material world in any real way?
Does prayer work?

 

[Marisa]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Then I can dismiss all claims of god's dominion over me and my eternal disposition with prejudice.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

First; agreed; that demanding scientific evidence for God is an impossible challenge to meet. However, the opposing is also true; it is impossible to disprove God.

It is additionally more difficult to disprove (or prove) God because God falls within many definitions; and science demands clear, concise definitions of a given object or phenomenon in order to operate.

So, we can even let go of "scientific" evidence; and just ask for evidence. Even this challenge is impossible, as any non-scientific evidence for God is based on subjective opinions and personal experiences; and every subjective opinion and personal experience can be interpreted by the human mind in almost as many ways as there are people.

What most atheists claim is that as there exists no evidence for God, it is irrational o believe in this God. Thus, in order to convince an atheist that there is a god, you must do the impossible: provide evidence.

When you consider that a person's measure of reality vs. fantasy is based on evidence and that person considers evidence the highest measure of "truth" or "fact", then it is certainly not ridiculous for this atheist to ask for that evidence as a precursor for belief. In fact, doing so is the method that most conforms to logic and reason.

 

[columbus]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God.

This is exceedingly rare.
Theists commonly make truth statements and assertions about their own God image. Those are often challenged. But that is different.

If theists as a group were better at distinguishing between beliefs that they hold due to faith and beliefs that they hold due to evidence the problem you are complaining about would evaporate.
That ball is squarely in the theist's court.
Tom

 

[outhouse]

Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred.

Thanks for trying to define what may not be there or what may be mythology ONLY.

But such a demand is ridiculous.

That is just your personal opinion. Its not a strong opinion or one that is well thought out either.

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God

It is upon you to prove existence, if you think he is not mythology. We could care less about what you imagine is there.

 

[outhouse]

In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Not a fact


It requires consciousness to reply to inane OP's, so there you have factual evidence that I have consciousness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does it interact with the material world in any real way?
Does prayer work?

That's the crux of the debate isn't it?

If there is such divine interaction then there is objective tangibility by which can be demonstrated to show it's actually the case.

God knows that there is enough testimony around that should bring the claims to light rather easily but......

S*** happens I suppose.

 

[outhouse]

God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed

isn't this sentence hypocritical?

I mean logically you say "god is" as you personally define it. Then in the same breath say it cannot be detected or observed. So how can you define it if it doesn't exist?

Bit of a corner you painted yourself into.

 

[Skwim]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God.

No they're not.

But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Your trolling here is dually noted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred.

Most objective measurement used by science is a matter of inference.

In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Baloney.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

isn't this sentence hypocritical?

I mean logically you say "god is" as you personally define it. Then in the same breath say it cannot be detected or observed. So how can you define it if it doesn't exist?

Bit of a corner you painted yourself into.

Indeed.

"We have no way to know anything at all about this thing I'm going to proceed to tell you all about."

It's like a big red flag signalling that he's talking out of his butt.

 

[Gambit]

I don't know. Without lapsing into solipsism, we have loads upon loads of observably testable data that it does. Since we define consciousness as awareness of the environment and existence, we can see humans responding as if they do, which is reproducible and observable and thus scientifically quantifiable. I can also define my experience of sensing and modeling my environment as consciousness and see others acting as if they are experiencing the same.

"As if" are the operative words here, and they reveal that an inference is being made, not a measurement.

 

[Gambit]

I sort of agree with the conclusion. God is something to be freely ignored, exactly because it is by definition not quite evidenciable.

I never made any such conclusion.