Evidence?

[Nepenthe]

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?

Of course!

 

[Storm]

Of course!

Done: Is Ineffability Advantageous?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

I agree. There is some, very weak, evidence. I find it better explained by alternative explanations. That's having studied the phenomenon extensively.

Had it turned out that intercessory prayer worked, I would be a theist today. The research that shows that it doesn't confirmed my tentative atheism.

 

[Autodidact]

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



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.

Not even hypthetically? That seems kind of close-minded and anti-empirical.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Exactly. The reports are weak evidence of the existence of the monster, probably not enough to warrant acceptance, but evidence nonetheless. And again, I'm sure you can imagine evidence that would convince you that there is such a monster.

 

[Autodidact]

Couple other thoughts, Storm. To decide whether any phenomenon is evidence of God, you first need to define God.

Speaking for myself, I think that God is defined as a being (with certain attributes) who cannot be perceived. That's almost like defining God as non-existent. So any evidence would have to be an effect of God, some effect that God would produce, and would not be produced in the absence of God. I haven't observed or heard reliable reports of any such effect. The other possibility, often advanced, is that the universe itself is such an effect. If so, I think we would have no way of either knowing or understanding such a God or Its relationship to the universe, so it's pretty much the functional equivalent of non-existent--to all intents and purposes--for me personally.

 

[Storm]

Couple other thoughts, Storm. To decide whether any phenomenon is evidence of God, you first need to define God.

For discussions like this, I tend to default to the deistic.

Speaking for myself, I think that God is defined as a being (with certain attributes) who cannot be perceived.

By any means, including the spiritual? Why?

 

[Autodidact]

For discussions like this, I tend to default to the deistic.


By any means, including the spiritual? Why?

I think that's the common definition of the word. "Spiritual" is not a means of perception. I think the common definition of God is a being with certain attributes (powerful creator, authority, etc.) who cannot be seen, heard, etc. If you can see, hear, etc., it's not God.

 

[Autodidact]

For discussions like this, I tend to default to the deistic.

By definition, I don't think there could be evidence for a Deist God. That's pretty much a best-guess-and-what-difference-would-it-make thing.

 

[Storm]

I think that's the common definition of the word. "Spiritual" is not a means of perception.

Except when it is, as millions of people believe. Why do you get to say they're wrong?

I think the common definition of God is a being with certain attributes (powerful creator, authority, etc.) who cannot be seen, heard, etc. If you can see, hear, etc., it's not God.

I agree with this.

By definition, I don't think there could be evidence for a Deist God. That's pretty much a best-guess-and-what-difference-would-it-make thing.

And this.

 

[Autodidact]

Except when it is, as millions of people believe. Why do you get to say they're wrong?

No, ask anyone what their senses are, they'll agree on hearing, seeing, smelling, etc. They may say they have spiritual experiences, but I don't hear people saying that "spritual" is a sense perception. I can't even imagine what that would be.

If "spiritual" is a sense perception, it would sort of presuppose the existence of something pretty Goddish.

You don't say, "I spirited it." Or even "I spiritually perceived it." You say, "I had a spiritual experience; I felt so and so, and thought so and so, and was aware of such and such, or even I saw a vision of or heard a sound of...

 

[Storm]

No, ask anyone what their senses are, they'll agree on hearing, seeing, smelling, etc. They may say they have spiritual experiences, but I don't hear people saying that "spritual" is a sense perception. I can't even imagine what that would be.

If "spiritual" is a sense perception, it would sort of presuppose the existence of something pretty Goddish.

You don't say, "I spirited it." Or even "I spiritually perceived it." You say, "I had a spiritual experience; I felt so and so, and thought so and so, and was aware of such and such, or even I saw a vision of or heard a sound of...

I didn't say it was a sense perception, that's silly. I'm saying that if such experiences are correctly interpreted, we obviously have a non-physical mode of perception.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't say it was a sense perception, that's silly. I'm saying that if such experiences are correctly interpreted, we obviously have a non-physical mode of perception.

I would say there is no evidence of any such thing as a non-physical mode of perception. No brain, no perception. I've never heard of an exception.

 

[Storm]

I would say there is no evidence of any such thing as a non-physical mode of perception. No brain, no perception. I've never heard of an exception.

Well, of course the brain is involved, that's not what we were talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, of course the brain is involved, that's not what we were talking about.

Isn't the brain physical?

 

[Storm]

Isn't the brain physical?

That doesn't make it a physical sense.

 

[justamere10]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the real historical evidence of God is in the countless testimonies of those who for ages have humbly and sincerely asked God if such things are true, and received an undeniable confirmation from Him, Spirit speaking to spirit.

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1: 5

James 1


In courts of law people are sometimes condemned even to death based on the evidence provided by the testimony of witnesses. There have been a huge number of witnesses over the ages that God lives and Jesus is the Christ, and there continues to be in our time, even living apostles who are special witnesses of Christ to all the world.

For example: “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him:That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father..."


Jesus Christ, The Son of God - Testimonies of Him - The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


Jesus Christ, The Son of God - Special Witnesses

Books of scripture are evidences similar to historical documents of a secular nature. We wouldn't know much about ancient Rome without such documents. So why are there people who think that the books of the bible are not evidence at least as valid as ancient documents about temporal things?

 

[Storm]

justamere10, the purpose of this thread is for non-believers to speculate on possible, scientific evidence of God's existence. It is not for you to bang the "Christianity is true" drum.

 

[justamere10]

justamere10, the purpose of this thread is for non-believers to speculate on possible, scientific evidence of God's existence. It is not for you to bang the "Christianity is true" drum.

Oops, I thought it was a general religious debate and added my thoughts. Is that not allowed then?

 

[Copernicus]

Storm, I don't understand why it is unreasonable to expect gods to make their existence known to us in fairly unmistakable ways, if any do indeed exist. There are a great many ways that they could do that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. So, in the absence of such direct evidence of their existence, one can infer at least three things:

1) Gods do not exist.
2) Gods exist but are incapable of interacting with us in a way that makes their existence obvious.
3) Gods exist, but they have reasons for not making their existence obvious to us.

My understanding of your beliefs is that you reject (1) and consider (2) or (3) more reasonable inferences. Is that right?