Evidence?

[Storm]

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

Please note, I am asking about God's existence only, not assuming that God wants us to believe/ worship. I don't believe that God cares one way or another what we believe, so those arguments - while valid when appropriate - are not relevant to this particular conversation.

 

[camanintx]

While personal experience is sufficient evidence for the person having the experience, how can it qualify as evidence for anyone else? If I cannot repeat your experience and get the same results, then how can I measure the truthfulness of your experience?

As for what evidence of God's existence could there be, you would have to ask "what would be different about the universe if God existed?" If the claim by YEC's that everything is only 6,000 years old were true, then why do we find so many things that appear to be much older? The typical explanation is that God created everything to look the way it is, but that assumes characteristics of something of which we know nothing about.

 

[Storm]

While personal experience is sufficient evidence for the person having the experience, how can it qualify as evidence for anyone else? If I cannot repeat your experience and get the same results, then how can I measure the truthfulness of your experience?

One of many reasons why I agree that the evidence is very weak, and don't expect it to convince everyone.

As for what evidence of God's existence could there be, you would have to ask "what would be different about the universe if God existed?"

The problem with that is that it assumes that God does not exist. The question should be neutral.

If the claim by YEC's that everything is only 6,000 years old were true, then why do we find so many things that appear to be much older?

That's a separate claim from God's existence.

The typical explanation is that God created everything to look the way it is, but that assumes characteristics of something of which we know nothing about.

Howso?

EDIT: You haven't answered the original question: what would you consider evidence of God?

 

[Yerda]

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

A million mile wide asteroid field spelling out "I did it - God" would be a good start. I'd settle for a conversation though.

 

[Storm]

A million mile wide asteroid field spelling out "I did it - God" would be a good start.

1)

2) Do you think that's a reasonable expectation?

3) That would be excellent evidence that God wants you to believe in Him, but as pointed out in the OP, we have no reason to assume such an agenda.

I'd settle for a conversation though.

Have you pursued any form of mystical practice?

 

[gnomon]

I've heard far more compelling personal stories of alien abduction than a relationship with God.

And then there is that pesky little problem of which God.

 

[Yerda]

1)

2) Do you think that's a reasonable expectation?

Well, no, in reference to what you said below:

3) That would be excellent evidence that God wants you to believe in Him, but as pointed out in the OP, we have no reason to assume such an agenda.

We don't. We neither have reason to believe there is a God or a whole rugby team of them, do we?

Have you pursued any form of mystical practice?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Storm]

And then there is that pesky little problem of which God.

Pick one. I can do the classical theistic model of a supernatural Creator, or my own panentheistic model if you like.

 

[Storm]

We don't. We neither have reason to believe there is a God or a whole rugby team of them, do we?

Nope.

Not that I'm aware of.

If a "conversation" would satisfy you, why not reach out? It's a difficult skill to learn, self-inducing trance, but why not try?

 

[Nanda]

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

That's not what I'd consider evidence; That's hearsay.

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

Since I don't believe there is a God, I also don't believe that there is any believable evidence for a God, so it would be very unlikely to find any that would convince me.

 

[Storm]

That's not what I'd consider evidence; That's hearsay.

Hearsay is evidence imo, just not very compelling evidence.

Since I don't believe there is a God, I also don't believe that there is any believable evidence for a God, so it would be very unlikely to find any that would convince me.

Fair enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God.

'Evidence' is, either,

• that which serves, to some degree or another, to make evident, or
• that which is offered to serve, to some degree or another, to make evident.

Clearly "widespread reports of personal experiences with God" is 'evidence' of something, as is the widespread superstition of our ancestors.

 

[Nanda]

Hearsay is evidence imo, just not very compelling evidence.

We'll have to agree to disagree. There are widespread reports of the Lochness Monster, too, but I'm not buying that one, either.

 

[logician]

There are a myriad definitions of the term "god", which in of itself means proving anything about the term is rather difficult. It does lend itself to the idea that god concepts are man-made for many reasons - fear of death, social control, gaining power, etc.

 

[Storm]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There are widespread reports of the Lochness Monster, too, but I'm not buying that one, either.

Not compared to the reports of God. That's pretty much in a league of its own. Besides, you don't think that any of those people saw something?

Now, once again, I'm not saying that the widespread experiences of God are anything like proof, or even strong evidence. I'm just saying that when you take all of them together, I don't see how you can just dismiss all of that.

 

[Storm]

Clearly "widespread reports of personal experiences with God" is 'evidence' of something, as is the widespread superstition of our ancestors.

See my last post, replying to Nanda.

What about (2) Jay? Is there anything you would consider evidence of God's existence?

 

[Storm]

There are a myriad definitions of the term "god", which in of itself means proving anything about the term is rather difficult. It does lend itself to the idea that god concepts are man-made for many reasons - fear of death, social control, gaining power, etc.

Or, from the believers side, it lends itself to the idea that we don't understand God. Your conclusion has no more support than mine. Would you like to answer the OP?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Besides, you don't think that any of those people saw something?

pixies ... faeries ... mermaids ... ufos ... yetis ... ghosts ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What about (2) Jay? Is there anything you would consider evidence of God's existence?

Sure: any intersubjectively verifiable abrogation of natural best explained by an appeal to supernatural agency possessing intentionality.

 

[Fluffy]

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

A container is made into evidence in virtue of the proposition that it is supporting. If it fails to support the proposition then it cannot accurately be described as evidence. If you reject this premise then the conclusion follows that every container is evidence for every proposition and thus evidence is rendered meaningless.

Therefore, we cannot call something evidence until we have established that it sufficiently demonstrates a proposition.

If you truly have a problem with this definition of evidence then whenever I or any other non-believer states "Evidence will convince me of God's existence" please replace "evidence" with a seperate word containing the attributes I have listed here.

Therefore, what I mean when I say "evidence" clearly cannot be satisfied by personal experience.

which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God.

It is not merely evidence that would convince me that God existed. If somebody showed me a logical argument that indicated atheism was untenable then I would also be converted e.g. the ontological argument.

However, I happen to believe that there is a logical argument that shows that idea of God held by Christians and Muslims (i.e. most theists) is incredibly unlikely (via the proposition that he created the universe). Therefore, I hold atheism with regards to those gods and any other creator god to be true. I am less convinced with regards to other gods.

Consequently, it is unfair to limit your scope of investigation to merely evidence when pure reason is also valid.

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

Imagine a god you don't believe in. Ask yourself what evidence you would need in order to believe in it. You have an answer. This should indicate to you that the request for evidence is neither unreasonable nor impossible to fulfill.

If you are genuinely enquiring then I would need evidence of any attributes that we agreed would be necessary to make a being god. So for example, if any being can be called god as long as he created the universe then I would need evidence that this being created the universe. If it is impossible to evidence this then it is impossible to evidence this god's existence. Nevertheless, such evidence would convince me.