Evidence?

[Storm]

Thanks to all those who've replied so far

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.

Fair enough.

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).

I agree.

Therefore, I hold atheism with regards to those gods and any other creator god to be true.

Why any other Creator God? How do the problems of the Abrahamic God reflect on, say, the Hindu Godhead?

I am less convinced with regards to other gods.

Cool, then.

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

Absolutely. Please bear in mind that the OP was a response to the oft-heard "I would believe if there were any evidence. I do not make the mistake of thinking this statement applies to all atheists.

Imagine a god you don't believe in.

Easier said than done. I believe all God-concepts are attempts to understand and describe a single reality.

If you are genuinely enquiring

I am. I believe in God, and personal experience aside, I don't believe there's any compelling empirical evidence.

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.

I tried to keep the OP generic, but perhaps that wasn't such a good idea. Shall we go with my own God-concept?

I believe that the physical cosmos is an aspect of God, rather than God's creation. I do not believe in the supernatural. God is both the source and sum of all matter, consciousness, and life force (energy) in this universe, the universe itself being the ininitely complex interaction of those three elements.

Now, how in the world would science go about dis/proving that?


To be perfectly honest, the purpose of this thread is to get those nonbelievers who do say "I would believe if there were any evidence" to give a bit more thought to that statement. If you don't say such things, the OP is not directed at you, though all thoughtful replies are appreciated, and the discussion much enjoyed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To be perfectly honest, the purpose of this thread is to get those nonbelievers who do say "I would believe if there were any evidence" to give a bit more thought to that statement.

Giving a bit more though to things is usually a good idea, but I think it would be wrong to presume that most naturalists have not given a good deal of thought to what constitutes evidence. Speaking of which, to what do your attribute reports of personal experience with "pixies ... faeries ... mermaids ... ufos ... yetis ... ghosts ..."?

 

[Storm]

Giving a bit more though to things is usually a good idea, but I think it would be wrong to presume that most naturalists have not given a good deal of thought to what constitutes evidence.

Good thing I make no such presumption, then.

Speaking of which, to what do your attribute reports of personal experience with "pixies... faeries

What reports?

... mermaids

Sea mammals half-glimpsed.

... ufos

I won't say there are none out there, but I've yet to hear such an account that struck me as anything but attention-seeking.

... yetis

Again, poorly seen animals, or possibly people.

... ghosts ..."?

Ghosts. I believe there's something as yet unexplained to such phenomena, I just don't think it's supernatural.

None of which are comparable to God, with the possible exception of ghosts. In which I believe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good thing I make no such presumption, then.

Perhaps ...

 

[LogDog]

A paranormal claim found to be legitimate would qualify (in my book) as evidence for the god hypothesis.

 

[Fluffy]

Why any other Creator God? How do the problems of the Abrahamic God reflect on, say, the Hindu Godhead?

The argument I am referring to raises difficulties concerning the role of god as a creator. Therefore, any god, including the Abrahamic version, that has this characteristic falls prey to it whilst any other god does not. I mentioned the Abrahamic version only to make the point that this characteristic is shared by the god who is envisioned by the majority of theists.

Absolutely. Please bear in mind that the OP was a response to the oft-heard "I would believe if there were any evidence. I do not make the mistake of thinking this statement applies to all atheists.

Fair enough but then your statement "which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God." is phrased in a critical manner when it should not be. When atheists state that evidence would convince them, they are not stating that evidence is the only thing that would convince them and so the lack of evidence for atheism is not a valid criticism of it.

Easier said than done. I believe all God-concepts are attempts to understand and describe a single reality.

Then use the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other version of God that is clearly made up and so cannot be an attempt "to understand and describe a single reality"

I am. I believe in God, and personal experience aside, I don't believe there's any compelling empirical evidence.

I don't believe that personal experience qualifies as personal experience, compelling or otherwise, and that if you treat it as such then you cheapen the requirement that is being asked for by atheists.

Shall we go with my own God-concept?

Absolutely.

Is "the physical cosmos" equivalent to "the universe"?
Is "life force" equivalent to "energy" as defined by science?
Is God equivalent to matter+energy+conciousness+source(matter,energy,conciousness)?
Is the universe equivalent to "the whole of existence"?
Is there anything in the universe that is not matter, energy or conciousness?
Is God equivalent to "the universe"?

By equivalent I mean logically equivalent. This means that if object A has a set of attributes then it is only equivilant to object B if B has an identical set.

 

[Nanda]

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.

Maybe if they were consistant, but they're not. Not by a long shot.

 

[love]

Evidence? Take a tomato seed, place it in fertile soil, water it. This will not work for everyone because they can't see pass the end of their own nose.

 

[Buttercup]

Evidence? Take a tomato seed, place it in fertile soil, water it. This will not work for everyone because they can't see pass the end of their own nose.

If you plant a tomato seed you can grow God?

 

[Fluffy]

Evidence? Take a tomato seed, place it in fertile soil, water it. This will not work for everyone because they can't see pass the end of their own nose.

I like chocolate icecream. This is evidence for God's non-existence. This doesn't work for everyone because they can't see past the end of their own noses.

I feel that the argument I have presented here is unconvincing because it fails to indicate why my love for chocolate ice cream evidences God's non-existence.

Additionally, it seems that "obviousness" is a relative quality and has no correlation with truth. Therefore, that I find it obvious that my love of ice cream evidences God's non-existence does not justify the proposition that those who find it unobvious are the one's who are not looking at the problem hard enough.

Therefore:
1) If I wish to assert that X is evidence of Y, I must justify why this is the case.
2) The obviousness of Y does not remove the necessity of 1) especially when debating with a person to whom Y is not obvious.
3) Obviousness is irrelevant to a debate.

 

[Storm]

Then use the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other version of God that is clearly made up and so cannot be an attempt "to understand and describe a single reality"

I can't think of a thing.

I don't believe that personal experience qualifies as personal experience, compelling or otherwise, and that if you treat it as such then you cheapen the requirement that is being asked for by atheists.

Did you mean that you don't consider it empirical evidence?

Is "the physical cosmos" equivalent to "the universe"?

Not exactly. "The physical cosmos" is the material aspect of the universe, the current model of science. I believe that model is incomplete, lacking recognition of consciousness. IOW, "the physical cosmos" = matter/energy whereas "the universe" = matter/life force/consciousness. What has been dubbed "the living Godiverse."

Is "life force" equivalent to "energy" as defined by science?

All energy is a form of life force

Is God equivalent to matter+energy+conciousness+source(matter,energy,conciousness)?

Yes.

Is the universe equivalent to "the whole of existence"?

Probably not. I believe there's at least one other Godiverse.

Is there anything in the universe that is not matter, energy or conciousness?

No.

Is God equivalent to "the universe"?

Yes, but I'm going to use Godiverse for clarity's sake.

 

[Fluffy]

Did you mean that you don't consider it empirical evidence?

Yes I did. Sorry about that!

If energy is part of "life source" then surely matter must be a part of it as well?

As far as I am aware, science does recognise, discuss and explore the phenomena of "consciousness" so I can only assume you are using the word to mean something different.

Therefore, in order to evidence your god, you would need evidence of both life force that is not energy/matter and consciousness. Once you have that then you have proven your god by definition.

However, since I have no idea what is meant by "life force" or "consciousness", I have no idea how you would go about doing this.

 

[Storm]

Yes I did. Sorry about that!

OK. I agree with you then, I don't consider it empirical evidence. It is, as Nanda pointed out, hearsay.

If energy is part of "life source" then surely matter must be a part of it as well?

Well, I don't pretend to more than a casual layman's understanding of physics, but no, I don't think so. Remember, the three elements interact.

As far as I am aware, science does recognise, discuss and explore the phenomena of "consciousness" so I can only assume you are using the word to mean something different.

It's beginning to, which delights me, but my (far from infallible) perception is that materialists still dominate the field.

I believe that consciousness is one of the primary building blocks of our universe, which is not supported by modern science.

I have no idea how you would go about doing this.

Nor I.

 

[Fluffy]

Well, I don't pretend to more than a casual layman's understanding of physics, but no, I don't think so. Remember, the three elements interact.

Physics shows that matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa. Therefore, turning energy into matter devoids it of its life force. Turning it back again reinstates it with life force. Is that right?

Nor I.

Science can talk about anything which we are aware of. You must be aware of conciousness and life energy if you believe them to be existent. Therefore, it must be possible for there to be evidence such that science would accept the existence of conciousness and life energy.

 

[Storm]

Physics shows that matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa. Therefore, turning energy into matter devoids it of its life force. Turning it back again reinstates it with life force. Is that right?

No, you're forgetting the interaction. All matter is imbued with both life force and consciousness, the three are inextricably interwined.

I've spent a good 10 minutes tying to come up with a workable explanation of life force and energy, but it's late and I give up. Maybe tomorrow.

Science can talk about anything which we are aware of.

Gotta disagree with you there.

Therefore, it must be possible for there to be evidence such that science would accept the existence of conciousness and life energy.

I do agree here, but I can't imagine what it would be. I have faith that eventually science will acknowledge these elements, and be revolutionized.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm sure many people who don't believe in some sort of god-type figure or equal kind of thing would be happy with a one-on-one convo

Oh and that the sky turned green with purple letters spelling "Hey guys - I'm here, just thought I'd let ya know ~ God" In every language possible, and then to make sure he got everyone that there'd be a huge voice in every language saying the same thing

For me personally though it doesn't really need to be that extreme

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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....

More nit picking....

You have hit on something: what cries out for explanation are the widespread experiences people have which they attribute to their cultural icons (the Buddha, the Virgin, God, aliens, demons, etc.). What is remarkable about these experiences is not the fact that everyone reports an experience with "God" (they don't), but that they are demonstrably caused by little electrical storms in our brains. Here's an interesting article on how feelings of an other-worldly "presence" can be induced using electromagnetic fields: Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

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

Well, what do you mean by "God"?

Judging by your conception of God, the "sum of all matter, consciousness, and life force (energy) in this universe" and so forth, I would say that most self-described atheists cannot deny the existence of God, as thus defined.

I'm not sure it's a very useful definition, but.....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think this exchange was interesting:

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

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

There is nothing unreasonable about it if God exists. Lowly, fallible human beings have crashed satellites into asteroids.....but the creator of the universe can't shuffle them around at will? Let's not forget that the only reason we, today, don't believe that God actively guides the planets is because we have the hindsight of 500 years of scientific knowledge.

To quote from one of my posts in another thread:

"Why not deliver [the evidence] in person, to everyone--every day if necessary? My schoolteachers were not all-powerful beings, yet they were able to muster the time and energy to talk to me and all of my classmates simultaneously, every day, in a manner that was so convincing that not a single classmate doubted the existence of any of my teachers. Surely it would be effortless for an infinite being to do even better, no?"

 

[PureX]

The only argument for the existence of "God" that I can think of is the fact that existence is the result of ordered energy. It does not seem likely to me, given what we already know about the nature of existence, that it would be so ordered were it to have occurred spontaneously, and without purpose. And I can't get around the questions that this poses. I can't answer those questions, either, but nor can I ignore them. And that's why I can't be an atheist.

I will point out something else, too. And that is that pretty much every atheist I've ever met was not really an atheist at all, but was an 'anti-theist'. By that I mean they were not proposing an atheistic vision of truth, they were simply denying a theistic one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only argument for the existence of "God" that I can think of is the fact that existence is the result of ordered energy.

Fact?