Evidence?

[Storm]

That would depend on the god in question, wouldn't it?

On the surface, yes. However, I can't think of any potential evidence for or against any God-concept I'm familiar with.

Theoretically, any god that interacts with the natural universe would produce effects that could be measured scientifically in some way or another.

Unless it's supernatural, which seems implicit in your statement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Theoretically, any god that interacts with the natural universe would produce effects that could be measured scientifically in some way or another.

Science deals with regularities. At best what you would have in such a situation is anomalous data.

 

[Willamena]

It would need to be evidence that satisfies Occam's Razor, i.e. that provides the simplest explanation to account for the facts. For example, a persistent, repeatable miracle that defied all attempts to explain scientifically, but which had a religious explanation, would count as reasonable evidence for the supernatural. Scientific proofs are never considered absolute or permanent, so the evidence would just have to be such that the religious explanation of some physical event was simpler than the alternative natural account.

If it was consistent and repeatable, would it be a "miracle" or rather something that was not yet accounted for by scientific explanation, regardless that it also had a religious explanation?

 

[Nepenthe]

That's why definitions of what "god" are is so important. Shifting the stars in the night sky to spell out a word may be evidence of a supreme being, but it may also be evidence of a superior species who can manipulate matter to a degree we're incapable of. It's difficult to define what would constitute evidence when the descriptions of gods are so varied and often contradictory.

Science deals with regularities. At best what you would have in such a situation is anomalous data.

That's the point of replication, to weed out anomalous results and clarify the phenomena being investigated. If a creator god exists, and the claims that this sentient being's influence is manifested in the natural world somehow, it is capable of being investigated. If it is not, then it's simply not amendable to scrutiny. So if a god exists whose influence on the world is so negligible that it can't be detected, it's not a particularly relevant god.

 

[Storm]

That's the point of replication, to weed out anomalous results and clarify the phenomena being investigated.

One problem with this: it requires some measure of control over the event. We have none.

If a creator god exists, and the claims that this sentient being's influence is manifested in the natural world somehow, it is capable of being investigated.

I still say this is an unjustified assumption.

If it is not, then it's simply not amendable to scrutiny. So if a god exists whose influence on the world is so negligible that it can't be detected, it's not a particularly relevant god.

Arguable, but relevance has no bearing on existence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it was consistent and repeatable, would it be a "miracle" or rather something that was not yet accounted for by scientific explanation, regardless that it also had a religious explanation?

Precisely. If it was consistent and repeatable it would be codified and viewed as a scientific law, as if by saying ...

F = G (m1*m2)/r^2​

explains rather than merely describes.

 

[cottage]

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

The necessarily false statement: 'There is no God'

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

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

God would have to do something to convince me it was god, and that there wasn't any other explanation. I can't specifically say what would or wouldn't constitute that at this point - I'll leave that up to god when he decides to present himself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless it's supernatural, which seems implicit in your statement.

But there'd still be an interface between the natural and supernatural. This might not be the case for a panentheistic or deistic deity, but it would for the standard, theistic, miracle-weilding ones.

Science deals with regularities. At best what you would have in such a situation is anomalous data.

Science deals with other rare or unique phenomena. For example, the emissions from pulsars were once just anomalous data.

One problem with this: it requires some measure of control over the event. We have none.

This hasn't stopped other sciences like astronomy or meteorology.

 

[Storm]

But there'd still be an interface between the natural and supernatural. This might not be the case for a panentheistic or deistic deity, but it would for the standard, theistic, miracle-weilding ones.

There would be an interface, but we can't predict how it would behave.

This hasn't stopped other sciences like astronomy or meteorology.

But they're studies of predictable events, not the whim of some omni-whatever diety.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Here's one example that would convince ME!

On the next full moon a message appears on the face of the moon. It reads "I am the Lord thy God."

Every person on earth sees that in his native language. Recordings and photos do as well. Each person seeing the original or a copy (however created) sees the same message. Blind persons and others unable to see the moon are nonetheless aware of the message.

The message remains visible and observation shows that the moon has changed orbit. It is now geosynchronous. Yet it remains the same distance from the earth and appears in the same place in the sky every night. (For those not familiar that is NOT possible by our understanding of the laws of motion. It could be one or the other but not BOTH.)

The message remains for a month. It then changes.

"And I'm mad as hell and I'm not putting up with you anymore!"


Get my attention.

 

[Nepenthe]

One problem with this: it requires some measure of control over the event. We have none.

No control, simply observation. 9-10ths' response of pulsars was a good example, but you shrugged it aside.

I still say this is an unjustified assumption.

Why?

Arguable, but relevance has no bearing on existence.

True, it doesn't. But I was responding to your speaking of evidence, and I was responding that the absence of evidence was indicative of an irrelevant entity.

There would be an interface, but we can't predict how it would behave.

Then how would you know what and where this interface was?

But they're studies of predictable events, not the whim of some omni-whatever diety.

And that's why the onus is always on the theist to provide evidence for their contention, not the non-theist. The theist can always shrug and say it's the unpredictable, unverifiable whim of their deity which is.

 

[Storm]

Why?

Because if the supernatural exists, then the laws of nature don't apply, nor do the rules of logic.

Then how would you know what and where this interface was?

That's just it: we can't.

And that's why the onus is always on the theist to provide evidence for their contention, not the non-theist.

No, that's not how burden of proof works. Neither position is automatically subject to it, it's on whomever makes positive claim.

The theist can always shrug and say it's the unpredictable, unverifiable whim of their deity which is.

You seem to think that's an advantage, or at least an excuse.

 

[Storm]

Here's one example that would convince ME!

On the next full moon a message appears on the face of the moon. It reads "I am the Lord thy God."

Every person on earth sees that in his native language. Recordings and photos do as well. Each person seeing the original or a copy (however created) sees the same message. Blind persons and others unable to see the moon are nonetheless aware of the message.

The message remains visible and observation shows that the moon has changed orbit. It is now geosynchronous. Yet it remains the same distance from the earth and appears in the same place in the sky every night. (For those not familiar that is NOT possible by our understanding of the laws of motion. It could be one or the other but not BOTH.)

The message remains for a month. It then changes.

"And I'm mad as hell and I'm not putting up with you anymore!"


Get my attention.

It helps if you read ALL of the OP.

 

[Willamena]

Because if the supernatural exists, then the laws of nature don't apply, nor do the rules of logic.

On what do you base that assertion? Is the supernatural necessarily unnatural or illogical?

 

[Storm]

On what do you base that assertion? Is the supernatural necessarily unnatural or illogical?

Unnatural, by definition. Illogical, not necessarily, but neither is it necessarily logical.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"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."

I did.

For ME the assumption of a god that has neither interest in nor control over its "creation" is de facto no "god" at ALL. I would not CARE if such a thing existed. The ENTIRE question is immediately moot. Such a thing would be Aristotle's "uncaused cause" and of no interest or relevance to ME.

 

[Storm]

"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."

I did.

For ME the assumption of a god that has neither interest in nor control over its "creation" is de facto no "god" at ALL. I would not CARE if such a thing existed. The ENTIRE question is immediately moot. Such a thing would be Aristotle's "uncaused cause" and of no interest or relevance to ME.

Then stay out of the thread.

 

[Nepenthe]

Because if the supernatural exists, then the laws of nature don't apply, nor do the rules of logic.

If the supernatural exists, it would have to have some influence on the material world. Even if the supernatural didn't conform to logic or nature, it's impact on the material universe would and thus that impact could be studied. If not, then saying "if the supernatural exists, then the laws of nature don't apply, nor do the rules of logic" is irrelevant gibberish. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. Arguing that the supernatural exists is a positive claim.

No, that's not how burden of proof works. Neither position is automatically subject to it, it's on whomever makes positive claim.

Not exactly, those proclaiming the existence of the supernatural and/or a god are making the positive claim. Both theists and non-theists accept the material world, that planets, rocks, people, molecules and atoms exist and are subject to scientific inquiry via physical means. The theist/supernaturalist proposes an additional component above and beyond the material world, and thus the onus does fall on them to prove the existence of god(s) or the supernatural.

The theist can always shrug and say it's the unpredictable, unverifiable whim of their deity...

You seem to think that's an advantage, or at least an excuse.

I'm unsure as to what you mean here. Are you saying I think it's an advantage for the theist in that they can fall back on the ambiguous/unverifiable/inscrutable nature of their god to avoid analysis? Well, it is an advantage for the theist when it comes to actually discussing their beliefs and substantiating it. I posted a similar thing in another thread earlier: can you imagine an atheist using such arguments to substantiate their non-thiesm?

 

[Storm]

If the supernatural exists, it would have to have some influence on the material world. Even if the supernatural didn't conform to logic or nature, it's impact on the material universe would and thus that impact could be studied.

Unless it altered that as well.

If not, then saying "if the supernatural exists, then the laws of nature don't apply, nor do the rules of logic" is irrelevant gibberish.

Why?

Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. Arguing that the supernatural exists is a positive claim.

Indeed it is. I'm not arguing that, though. I don't believe in the supernatural. I'm saying if.

Not exactly, those proclaiming the existence of the supernatural and/or a god are making the positive claim.

No, not automatically. Positive claim is a statement of fact, as opposed to belief or opinion. "God exists/ doesn't exist" is positive claim, but "I believe in God" is not.

I'm unsure as to what you mean here. Are you saying I think it's an advantage for the theist in that they can fall back on the ambiguous/unverifiable/inscrutable nature of their god to avoid analysis?

Yes.

Well, it is an advantage for the theist when it comes to actually discussing their beliefs and substantiating it.

Not really. Personally, I find it an immensely frustrating obstacle.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1560438-post16.html

I posted a similar thing in another thread earlier: can you imagine an atheist using such arguments to substantiate their non-thiesm?

I saw that, and was very tempted to respond, but didn't because it was a DIR. I also don't want to derail this thread with it. If I started a new one, would you participate?