Evidence?

[Storm]

there is nothing we know in this creation without end & beginning. if i did not believe in God, that would confuse me very much. where was i before i was born? how did i get here? why am i me? why am i aware of myself? why am i able to think of a creator? what's all of these thoughts for?

All those questions have naturalistic answers. However, they're off-topic.

 

[rojse]

Creator creates. therefor there is creation. wouldn't creation itself be enough as evidence? whatelse could there be (as evidence) other than creation?

Two points:
First, it's quite a leap to go from "stuff has been created, ergo, there is a creator," to the omniprescent, omnipotent being that takes a proactive interest in our actions and fate that most people envisage when the term "God" is used.

Secondly, where did God come from? You can't say "we're all here, something had to do it, that something is God" without wondering where God come from. You have just shifted the problem of where everything has come from to a useless "God done it".

 

[Storm]

Two points:
First, it's quite a leap to go from "stuff has been created, ergo, there is a creator," to the omniprescent, omnipotent being that takes a proactive interest in our actions and fate that most people envisage when the term "God" is used.

I'd like to point out that that's precisely the theology I'm trying to keep out of the conversation.

Secondly, where did God come from? You can't say "we're all here, something had to do it, that something is God" without wondering where God come from. You have just shifted the problem of where everything has come from to a useless "God done it".

All good points that don't really belong in this thread.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Not when there are naturalistic explanations, no.


I was gonna go with circular reasoning.

Would have been fine. It's effectively the same thing - just a different term.

 

[.lava]

All those questions have naturalistic answers. However, they're off-topic.

i am sorry for being off-topic.



.

 

[Storm]

No worries.

 

[Tallefred]

For me it would take a reputed scientist publishing a report which says "for the following reasons we have concluded that there is a god" at which point all the scientists who believe in athiesm would give up and convert. Which is unlikely to happen.

 

[nameless]

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.

Most of the religeons are teaching false concept regarding god, which are totally out of logic, and it is the reason why people turn into atheist. Cannot blame the atheists when religeons are going so blind.

 

[S-word]

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.

The singularity that was in the beginning has become 'Who I Am,' who is able to comprehend the invisible mind that is who I am, who is continuing to develop in this physical body; and who I am, is less than a fly speck in the eternal and boundless Cosmos that the singularity of our origin has become, and you ask, "What evidence of God's existence could there be? What, are you blind mate? Can't you see the godhead that has developed in this physical universal body?

 

[darkendless]

The singularity that was in the beginning has become 'Who I Am,' who is able to comprehend the invisible mind that is who I am, who is continuing to develop in this physical body; and who I am, is less than a fly speck in the eternal and boundless Cosmos that the singularity of our origin has become, and you ask, "What evidence of God's existence could there be? What, are you blind mate? Can't you see the godhead that has developed in this physical universal body?

We non-believers are not blind, we choose not to make ourselves believe in things that are not tangible or mathematically explainable. We also do not try to use philosophical comparisons to explain things that are as probable as a toss of a coin.
We (well some of us) have let ourselves believe that we cannot have evolved, adapted, rather came as we are. Its as though these people have given up and stopped trying to understand ourselves, content with life in submission and restriction.

 

[crystalonyx]

One must be able to define exactly what "your" god is, before evidence can be presented to support that definition. Most god definitions are strongly based in tradition and myth, hardly a basis for confrming from a scientific viewpoint.

 

[Storm]

One must be able to define exactly what "your" god is, before evidence can be presented to support that definition. Most god definitions are strongly based in tradition and myth, hardly a basis for confrming from a scientific viewpoint.

Pick one, I really don't care. I can explain mine, if you like. Or, use the generic theistic model, that should be easier.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This will end up being a bit of a tautology, but if we assume the "standard" omnimax deity, being convinced of his/her/its existence would convince me of his/her/its existence:

- an omniscient God would know what it would take to convince me of his/her/its existence, whatever that may be (I don't actually know what it would be, but he/her/it would).
- an omnipotent God would be capable of making this happen.

I freely acknowledge that this may rightfully be considered a cop-out answer.

 

[Storm]

Reposting from the OP:

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.

... which was poorly phrased, actually. I consider speculations on God's motives and desires to be entirely seperate from the question of existence.

Perhaps this means that the deistic model would be more in line with the original question?

 

[Storm]

This will end up being a bit of a tautology, but if we assume the "standard" omnimax deity, being convinced of his/her/its existence would convince me of his/her/its existence:

- an omniscient God would know what it would take to convince me of his/her/its existence, whatever that may be (I don't actually know what it would be, but he/her/it would).
- an omnipotent God would be capable of making this happen.

I freely acknowledge that this may rightfully be considered a cop-out answer.

It's a perfectly legitimate answer to the wrong question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a perfectly legitimate answer to the wrong question.

Is it? I think that me being convinced of God would be sufficient evidence for me to be convinced of God.

 

[Storm]

Is it? I think that me being convinced of God would be sufficient evidence for me to be convinced of God.

But the question isn't what would convince you, it's what (preferably scientific) evidence is possible. A thought experiment, not a conversion attempt.

 

[Falvlun]

But the question isn't what would convince you, it's what (preferably scientific) evidence is possible. A thought experiment, not a conversion attempt.

Dang. This seems like an interesting conversation, but I do not have the time or patience to read all 24 pages right now (Yikes!).

Let's just take the concept of Jesus turning water to wine. If we set up a lab, with trustworthy people and no contamination, and set out a vat of water and had people ask God nicely to turn it into wine, and God did this, I don't know, maybe 100 times at least, and then the research was published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, I would consider this acceptible evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Crystal asks the most important question in this discussion: What is "god"?

Don't say what it wants, how it acts, or anything like that; describe the actual characteristics of "god" such that its existence or nonexistence can be discerned.

Otherwise, one may as well ask: Does kelptch exist? What's kelptch? I dunno.

 

[Storm]

Crystal asks the most important question in this discussion: What is "god"?

Don't say what it wants, how it acts, or anything like that; describe the actual characteristics of "god" such that its existence or nonexistence can be discerned.

Otherwise, one may as well ask: Does kelptch exist? What's kelptch? I dunno.

I'll tell you what I told him: pick one. There are many well-defined God-concepts, and I really don't care which one you use.